Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

East Lothian (Western District) Water Order Confirmation Bill [Lords],

Consideration deferred till Tomorrow.

ADJOURNMENT MOTIONS UNDER STANDING ORDER NO. 10.

Return ordered, "of Motions for Adjournment under Standing Order No. 10, showing the date of such Motion, the name of the Member proposing, the definite matter of urgent public importance, and the result of any Division taken

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.


Date when Closure moved, and by whom.
Question before House or Committee when moved.
Whether in House or Committee.
Whether assent given to Motion or withheld by Speaker or Chairman.
Assent withheld because, in the opinion of the Chair, a decision would shortly be arrived at without that Motion.
Result of Motion, and if a Division, Numbers for and against.

and (2) in the Standing Committees under the following heads:


1.
2.
3.
4.
5.


Date when Closure moved, and by whom.
Question before Committee when moved.
Whether assent given to Motion or withheld by Chairman.
Assent withheld because, in the opinion of the Chair, a decision would shortly be arrived at without that Motion.
Result of Motion, and, if a Division, Numbers for and against.

(in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 234, of Session 1 of 1921)."—[The Deputy-Chairman.]

PRIVATE BILLS AND PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Return ordered, "of the number of Private Bills, Hybrid Bills, and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders introduced into the House of Commons and brought
thereon during Session 2 of 1921 and Sessions I and 2 of 1922 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 232, of Session 1 of 1921)."—[The Deputy-Chairman.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Return ordered, "showing, with reference to Session 2 of 1921 and Sessions 1 and 2 of 1922, (1) the total number of days on which the House sat; and (2) the days on which Business of Supply was considered (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 233, of Session 1 of 1921."—[The Deputy-Chairman.]

CLOSURE OF DEBATE (STANDING ORDER NO. 26).

Return ordered, "respecting application of Standing Order No. 26 (Closure of Debate) during Session 2 of 1921 and Sessions 1 and 2 of 1922 (1) in the House and in Committee of the Whole House, under the following heads:

from the House of Lords, and of Acts passed in Session 2 of 1921 and Sessions 1 and 2 of 1922, classed according to the following subjects:—Railways; Tramways; Tramroads; Subways; Canals and Navigations; Roads and Bridges: Water; Waterworks; Gas; Gas and Water; Lighting and Improvement; Local Legislation; Corporations, etc. (not relating to Local Legislation or to Lighting and Improvement Schemes); Ports, Piers, Harbours, and Docks: Pilotage;
Churches, Chapels, and Burying Grounds; Markets and Fairs; Gaols and other County Buildings; Inclosure and Drainage; Estate; Patent; Divorce; and Miscellaneous:

Of all the Private Bills, Hybrid Bills, and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders which in Session 2 of 1921 and Sessions 1 and 2 of 1922 have been reported on by Committees on Opposed Private Bills or by Committees nominated partly by the House and partly by the Committee of Selection, together with the names of the selected Members who served on each Committee; the first and also the last day of the sitting" of each Committee; the number of days on which each Committee sat; the number of days on which each selected Member has served; the number of days occupied by each Bill in Committee; the Bills the Preambles of which were reported to have been proved; the Bills the Preambles of which were reported to have been not proved; and, in the case of Bills for confirming Provisional Orders, whether the Provisional Orders ought or ought not to be confirmed:

Of all Private Bills and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders which, in Session 2 of 1921 and Sessions 1 and 2 of 1922, have been referred by the Committee of Selection to the Chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means, together with the names of the Members who served on each Committee; the number of days on which each Committee sat; and the number of days on which each Member attended:

And, of the number of Private Bills, Hybrid Bills, and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders withdrawn or not proceeded with by the parties, those Bills being specified which have been referred to Committees and dropped during the sittings of the Committee (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 0.004, of Session 1 of 1921)."—[The Deputy-Chairman.]

PUBLIC BILLS.

Return ordered, "of the number of Public Bills, distingushing Government from other Bills, introduced into this House, or brought from the House of Lords, during Session 2 of 1921 and Sessions 1 and 2 of 1922; showing the
number which received the Royal Assent; the number which were passed by this House, but not by the House of Lords; the number passed by the House of Lords, but not by this House; and distinguishing the stages at which such Bills as did not receive the Royal Assent were dropped or postponed and rejected in either House of Parliament (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 0.005, of Session 1 of 1921)."—[The Deputy-Chairman.]

PUBLIC PETITIONS.

Return ordered, "of the number of Public Petitions presented and printed in Session 2 of 1921 and Sessions 1 and 2 of 1922; with the total number of signatures in each Session (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 0.001, of Session 1 of 1921)."—[The Deputy-Chairman.]

SELECT COMMITTEES.

Return ordered, "of the number of Select Committees appointed in Session 2 of 1921 and Sessions 1 and 2 of 1922 and the Court of Referee; the subjects of inquiry; the names of the Members appointed to Serve on each,. and of the Chairman of each; the number of days each Committee met, and the number of days each Member attended; the total expense of the attendance of witnesses at each Select Committee, and the name of the Member who moved for such Select Committee; also the total number of Members who served on Select Committees (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 0.002, of Session 1 of 1921) —[The Deputy-Chairman.]

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE.

Return ordered, "of the days on which the House sat in Session 2 of 1921 and Sessions 1 and 2 of 1922, stating for each day the date of the month and day of the week, the hour of the meeting, and the hour of Adjournment; and the total number of hours occupied in the Sittings of the House, and the average time; and showing the number of hours on which the House sat each day, and the number of hours after eleven p.m.; and the number of entries in each day's Votes and Proceedings."— [The Deputy-Chairman.]

STANDING COMMITTEES.

Return ordered, "For Session 2 of 1921 and Sessions 1 and 2 of 1922 of (1) the total number and the names of all Members (including and distinguishing Chairmen) who have been appointed to serve on one or more of the six Standing Committees appointed under Standing Order No. 47, showing, with regard to each of such Members, the number of sittings at which he was present: (2) the number of Bills considered by all and by each of the Standing Committees, the number of days on which each Committee sat, and the names of all Bills considered by a Standing Committee, distinguishing where a Bill was a Government Bill or was brought from the House of Lords, and showing, in the case of each Bill, the particular Standing Committee by whom it was considered, the number of days on which it was considered by the Committee, and the number of Members present on each of those days (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 0.003, of Session 1 of 1921)."—[The Deputy-Chairman.]

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

HARBOUR DUES.

Mr. SHINWELL: 1.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether representations have been made to his Department with reference to excessive harbour dues; whether such charges are imposed without consultation with the Board of Trade; and, if so, whether, having regard to the heavy burdens on shipping and commercial interests arising from this cause, he will take action in the matter?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Lieut.-Colonel Ashley): I have been asked to reply to this question. Representations have been received from various shipping and trading organisations in respect of applications made by dock and harbour authorities under the provisions of the Harbours, Docks and Piers (Temporary Increase of Charges) Act, 1920 to 1922. These representations have been, or will be, referred to the Rates
Advisory Committee for consideration in conjunction with the applications to which they relate.

Mr. SHINWELL: Is there any immediate prospect of a reduction of charges as a result of the representations that have been made?

Lieut.-Colonel ASHLEY: I shall have to wait until the Committee has reported before answering that question.

Mr. SHINWELL: Is there any prospect of the Committee reporting shortly?

Lieut-Colonel ASHLEY: There will be no undue delay.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is it not a fact that only legislation passed this year has enabled these excessive charges to be made?

Lieut.-Colonel ASHLEY: The lion, and gallant Member could not have listened to my answer, which referred to the Act of 1920–22.

Mr. G. BALFOUR: Is it not the fact that the excessive dues are attributable to the extraordinary wages claimed by dock workers? [HON. MEMBERS: "NO, no!"]

BEET SUGAR.

Major T. HAY: 7.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will give figures as to the tonnage of beet sugar imported into this country during the year 1921, and the tonnage of beet sugar manufactured in this country during the year 1021?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir P. Lloyd-Greame): During the year 1921 the imports of unrefined beetroot sugar into the United Kingdom from all sources amounted to 13,685 tons. In the case of refined sugar the trade returns of the United Kingdom do not distinguish between sugar manufactured from beetroot and that manufactured from sugar cane or other materials. The quantity of beet sugar produced in the United Kingdom during the year 1921 was 6,363 tons.

TEXTILE FABRICS (DEWSBURY AND BATLEY).

Mr. RILEY: 14.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the value of the exports of textile fabrics from the towns of Dewsbury and Batley for the 11 months of each of the years 1913, 1919, and 1922?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I regret that I am unable to give the information desired, as exporters are not required to include in their declarations to the Customs particulars as to the places in this country at which goods for export have been manufactured.

MERCHANT SHIPS (MANNING).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 15.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the widespread dissatisfaction in the ports of the United Kingdom among seafarers at the working of the present system of manning merchant ships, and especially as regards the working of the P.O. 5 form; if he is aware that in many cases where a sailor has found a berth in a ship he is prevented by the officials of the Sailors and Firemen's Union from obtaining this form, without which he cannot go aboard under the Regulations; that this system puts great power in the hands of these officials which is liable to abuse; and whether he will receive a deputation on the subject?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: The Board of Trade have received from time to time complaints very much on the lines indicated in the question, and it appeared that the trouble is due to a dispute between different unions representing seamen. In this dispute, so long as the law is complied with, the Board of Trade have no power to interfere, and in these circumstances I do not think that any useful purpose would be served by a deputation.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of these cases have nothing to do with any disputes between unions, and arise because these men have been out of work or sick for a long time, and cannot pay the exorbitant charges that are asked before they receive these forms?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I have looked into this matter, and am clear that there is no legal question arising to which I am entitled or ought to reply.

Mr. SHINWELL: Is it not the case that representations have been made to the right hon. Gentleman's Department and to his predecessor, which go to prove that many of the men so victimised have been men who saw service during the War, who suffered from submarine warfare—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order!"]

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is rather monopolising Question Time.

BRITISH DYESTUFFS CORPORATION.

Major M. WOOD: 21.
asked the President of the Board of Trade how much has been paid or become payable during the three months ended 30th November to the British Dyestuffs Corporation by way of commission or other allowances in respect to their appointment as Government agents for the disposal of dyes received from Germany as reparation: and what was the value credited to Germany for the dyes disposed of by the corporation during that time?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: The commission for the three months in question is, approximately, £4.600, and the proceeds of the sales of reparation dyestuffs during that period were, approximately, £66,000. The sterling value credited to Germany for the dyestuffs received during the period, which are, of course, by no means identical with the dyestuffs sold in this country in the same period, was, according to the Reparation Commission, about £107,000.

INFORMATION REGISTER.

Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: 25.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what is the number of firms which have enrolled on the Department's special register for the purpose of receiving information from abroad; and whether he can state what measures are taken to let firms in this country know of this must useful section of his Department?

Sir WILLIAM JOYNSON - HICKS (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): The number of firms at present enrolled on the special register of the Department of Overseas Trade is 2.7G6. The Department is in touch with a much larger number of firms than this figure represents, but it will facilitate the prompt distribution of commercial information in the right quarters if every firm desiring to receive such information will enrol on the register. Particulars in regard to the special register service of information are published from time to time in the "Board of Trade Journal," and other suitable opportunities are taken to bring it to the notice of British firms in correspondence and in interviews.

BRITISH LEGATION, LISBON (COMMERCIAL SECRETARY).

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: 56.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in connection with the problem of restarting trade between this country and foreign nations, the Government are alive to the fact that it is desirable to obtain the best possible men as commercial secretaries to the various British Embassies and Legations; and whether he can assure the House that the Government have no intention of Eibolishing the post of commercial secretary to the British Legation at Lisbon?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have been asked to reply to this question. The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I regret that it is necessary, in order to reduce the total expenditure on the Commercial Diplomatic Service, to abolish the post of commercial secretary at Lisbon, but I am securing the appointment at Lisbon of a Consul, who has had experience of a commercial secretary's work, and who will, I hope, be able to a very considerable extent to perform, in addition to his Consular duties, the functions hitherto carried out by the commercial secretary.

Sir W. DAVISON: Is the hon. Gentleman a ware of the consternation caused amongst traders in Portugal by the withdrawal of this distinguished public servant, who has been most useful in regard to trade between this country and Portugal?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have received a deputation of traders in regard to this matter, and have explained to them the financial exigencies of the country which compel me to dispense with his services.

Sir W. DAVISON: Would not the money have been better spent in connection with the continuation of trade with the continent in this way than in casting millions into Austria?

COLOURED SEAMEN (BRITISH PORTS).

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: 2.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the great number of coloured seamen in Hull and other ports,
and of the great number of unemployed British white seamen; whether he is also aware of the many cases of unfortunate social results from the presence of these men in a white community; and whether, both in the interests of the native-born seamen and of public morals, some steps can be taken to induce these coloured men to return to their native lands?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I am aware of the presence of a number of coloured seamen in Hull and other ports, and of the unemployment which exists among British white seamen. I am not aware that there has been much recent trouble owing to the presence of these coloured seamen, many of whom are British subjects. During the years immediately following the Armistice special measures were taken to induce coloured seamen who had no prospect of obtaining employment in this country to return to their native lands, but these measures, which were only partially successful and were expensive, had to be discontinued. I may add that the Home Office have taken special steps to prevent the entry of coloured seamen who are not British subjects.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: With respect to the second part of the question, has the Board of Trade communicated with social workers and ministers of religion and others who might give a good deal of evidence on this matter? Will the right hon. Gentleman do something to prevent shipowners signing on those black crews on ships to be discharged in British ports, arid then leaving the men stranded here?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: There have been constant communications by the Home Office and by my Department with the bodies referred to by the hon. and gallant Member, and it is exactly to meet the condition of affairs referred to in the second part of the supplementary question that the Home Office has made the Regulations to which I have referred.

COKE, IRON AND STEEL (PRODUCTION COSTS).

Mr. HANCOCK: 5.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the wages cost of producing a ton of coke, a ton of ordinary iron, and a ton of finished steel, respectively, for the years 1913 and 1921?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I regret that I am unable to furnish figures showing the proportion of total wages to output in the case of the products named in the question.

Mr. HANCOCK: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that similar information has been given on previous occasions and for a number of years?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: No, Sir. I am not. I am always anxious to give information and never withhold it if it is possible to give it, but when this question came before me, I asked if it was possible for my Department to procure it, and was informed that it was not. If I can do better, I will let the hon. Member know.

CRUDE PETROLEUM (PRODUCTION COST).

Mr. HANCOCK: 6.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the reason why he is unable to state the cost per ton of production of crude petroleum in Great Britain, Trinidad, Egypt, and Mexico for the year 1921?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: Such figures are not published by the operating companies, who are alone in a position to make the necessary calculations.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

WELFARE COMMITTEES (BANKING ACCOUNTS).

Mr. ROBERT MORRISON: 8.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that, with regard to the banking accounts of the miners' welfare committees, inquiries were addressed only to certain large banks in this country; and if he will take steps to secure, in regard to any further inquiries to banks concerning the keeping of Government banking accounts, that the inquiry should be addressed to the whole of the bankers of this country and not merely to members of the banking trust?

The SECRETARY, MINES DEPARTMENT (Lieut.-Colonel Lane-Fox): I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to a similar question asked by the hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. A. V. Alexander) on 29th November.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Did I not give the President of the Board of Trade notice that I wished him to answer the question, as he is the Cabinet Minister in charge of this Department?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: The Secretary for Mines deals with all detailed mining questions, and it has been the practice in this House—and a very convenient one, I think—for him to answer these questions.

Mr. ALEXANDER: My point is to secure that in future the President of the Board of Trade shall sec that all banking interests are consulted, and not merely sections.

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: This question relates to a purely detailed question where a particular banking account inside the Mines Department is kept, and I think the proper person to deal with that is the Secretary in charge of that particular Department.

TYNEWYDD COLLIEHY.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 27.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether his attention has been called to the closing down of the Tynewydd Colliery, belonging to the Powell Duffryn Coal Company, thus throwing hundreds of men out of work; whether the rateable value upon which the company will pay rates will be reduced because the mine is closed; and by how much will the rateable value be reduced in this case?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Major Boyd-Carpenter): I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend is informed that the colliery referred to has been closed pending the installation of improved machinery, and that, in consequence of the cessation of output, the rateable value of the pit will be temporarily reduced. Information is not, however, available as to the amount of this reduction.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman find out what the amount of the reduction is, seeing that by reason of this reduction unemployment is created?

Major BOYD-CARPENTER: I have already answered that question.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman find out the information?

Major- BOYD-CARPENTER: I have already said that it is not available.

Mr. MARDY JONES: Why is it not available, seeing that the rates paid by this colliery and every other colliery in South Wales are upon a tonnage basis, and that the rate paid per ton has been fixed by the board of guardians years ago. so that it is simply a sum in arithmetic?

Major BOYD-CARPENTER: It is a sum in arithmetic based upon a future estimate, and that is rather difficult.

SAFETY LAMPS.

Mr. HARDIE: 28.
asked the Secretary of Mines whether the safety lamp is for the purpose of permitting men to work amongst gas, or whether it is simply to protect the men against the unexpected presence of gas?

Lieut.-Colonel LANE-FOX: The main purpose of the safety lamp is to provide light with security from the risk of ignition of gas by the lamp. The Coal Mines Act prohibits the employment of workers in any place where 2½ per cent, or more of firedamp is present; in the general body of the air.

Mr. HARDIE: The last answer was that there was gas present. How can the hon. and gallant Member now say the lamp has that function and that alone?

Lieut.-Colonel LANE-FOX: As the hon. Member knows, that is the very difficult question which has been referred to the Miners' Safety Lamp Committee, and I am expecting a Report.

PLEAN COLLIERY.

Mr. HARDIE: 29.
asked the Secretary for Mines if he will procure the report book from 8th July to 20th July from the Plean Colliery, and place the same in the House for inspection?

Lieut.-Colonel LANE-FOX: The Chief Inspector of Mines has held a public inquiry, at which these records were in evidence, into the causes of the explosion which occurred at this mine on 13th July, and I think that hon. Members would prefer to await his Report, rather than to examine a small part of the evidence for
themselves. The hon. Member is no doubt aware that representatives of the persons employed at the mine have a statutory right of access to the report books of the mine.

Mr. HARDIE: Is it not a fact that His Majesty's inspector visited the mine the day before the explosion, and signed for gas being present in the place where these men were killed?

Lieut.-Colonel LANE-FOX: I cannot say.

PAYMENTS TO TREASURY.

Mr. BATEY: 30.
asked the Secretary for Mines if he can state the amount of money that went into the Treasury from the coal mines of Great Britain each year from 1915 to 1920, inclusive?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Baldwin): For the period up to the year 191–18 I beg to refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Chamberlain) to the hon. Member for Ogmore on the 1st December, 1919, of which I am sending him a copy. These statistics were available mainly as a result of a special inquiry made for the Coal Industry Commission. To bring them up to date would involve a further special Return, which I am unable to authorise in view of the expense involved.

SIDDICK COLLIERY (EXPLOSION).

Mr. HARDIE: 31.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether, in the recent explosion at Siddick Colliery, a violation of Section 29 of the Coal Mines Act, 1911, was committed?

Lieut.-Colonel LANE-FOX: I have directed that a public inquiry into the causes and circumstances of this explosion be held by the Chief Inspector of Mines concurrently with the adjourned inquest, beginning to-day. Until the result of this inquiry is known I am not in a position to reply to the question.

Mr. HARDIE: When the question was put another way, the hon. Gentleman answered that gas was present at that time. Why does he say that and now put it off? Does he know anything about mines or gas?

DURHAM MINES.

Mr. BATEY: 33.
asked the Secretary for Mines if he is aware that there are a large
number of miners unemployed in the county of Durham; and whether he will inquire of the Durham coal-owners belonging to the collieries where these men were employed if it is possible to re-open their pits or parts of the pits which are closed so that the miners can be again employed, seeing that the coal-owners average profit, as revealed by the last two monthly ascertainments, was Is. 10½d. per ton for the month of October and 2s. 0½d. per ton for the month of September?

Lieut.-Colonel LANE-FOX: I am aware that certain coal mines in Durham which employed before the War about 2½ per cent, of the total number of colliery workers in the county are not at present working. I have no doubt that they would not remain closed if it were possible to work them profitably, and it is impossible for me to bring any pressure to bear upon the owners in the matter. The hon. Member will understand that the realisation of a certain average profit for the district does not necessarily mean that any given pit can work at that profit or indeed at any profit at all.

Mr. BATEY: I was not suggesting that the hon. Gentleman should bring pressure on the coalowners. I was asking him to see the coalowners, because their argument now is that parts of the mine are not profitable and therefore they arc unemployed

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member cannot argue at Question Time.

INSPECTORS' KEPOETS.

Mr. MARDY JONES: 34.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether, when one or more of His Majesty's inspectors of mines, or when one or more of their sub-inspectors, visit any coal mine for inspection of the mine, he will cause a copy of their report or reports upon the condition of the mine to be posted up in a prominent position near the mouth of the mine so that the report or reports can be read the same day by the miners working in the mine?

Lieut.-Colonel LANE-FOX: This matter was very fully argued by a deputation from the Miners Federation which met the then Secretary of State for Home Affairs in February, 1914. The conclusion at which the Home Secretary
arrived was that the suggested arrangement would be detrimental to the work carried out by the inspectors to secure the proper protection of the workers. I am of the same opinion.

Mr. JONES: This was last brought to the notice of the Department in 1914. Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that there has been since then very general dissatisfaction amongst the miners that this method is not adopted, seeing that it is now enforced by colliery examiners and working inspectors?

WAGES AND CONDITIONS.

Mr. WESTWOOD: 61.
asked the Prime Minister if he is aware that hundreds of mine workers are being paid starvation wages and that their wives and children are unprovided with sufficient food or clothing; and what action, if any, does he propose taking to end the foregoing state of affairs?

Mr. EDWARDS: 51.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will set up a Committee to inquire into the workings of the coal industry, the high charges for what is brought in under the title of other costs, the system of sale and distribution, etc., with a view to improving the position in this industry generally and making it possible to maintain those engaged in it to live n decency and comfort?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Bonar Law): As regards the general position of the industry, I have recently received a deputation from the Miners ederation—a report of the proceedings of which was published—and I understand that there will be an opportunity for discussing the subject on Wednesday. A Committee is already inquiring into certain aspects of the system of distribution.

TRUSTS.

Sir HENRY BUCKINGHAM: 9.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is now prepared, in view of the powerful influence which certain trusts are believed to have upon the prices of certain agricultural products and on the general ground that the Government ought to have powers of investigation and regulation in such matters, to introduce the permanent legislation on trusts which was promised in the last Parliament?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: As I have already stated in answer to previous questions, the Government are not in a position to make any pronouncement as to legislation in respect of trusts, but the report of the Committee now being set up by the Ministry of Agriculture will, of course, be taken into very careful consideration when received, so far as it may have a bearing on this question.

GAS (THERMAL UNIT CHARGES).

. Mr. GILBERT: 1
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has yet appointed a Committee to inquire into the charges made by London gas companies for the present supply of gas by the method of the therm; can he state the names of the members of the Committee and what is its reference; and, in view of the general complaint from gas consumers, if they are in any way represented on the Committee, and by whom?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: Yes, Sir, and I stated the names of the members of the Committee on the 30th November, in reply to the hon. Member for the Yatdley Division of Birmingham (Mr. Jephcott). The terms of reference are "to inquire and report as to the method of charging for gas on a thermal basis." All the members may, I think, be considered as representing the interests of gas consumers.

Mr. GILBERT: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider appointing a member of the London County Council on this Committee, as representing the consumers?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: No, Sir; the Committee is already appointed and is anxious to start its work. There is on the Committee Mr. Arthur Balfour, who is well known. He comes from the city of Sheffield, which, I think, is the only city that has its gas consumers organised in one single union.

Mr. GILBERT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware there are several gas companies supplying London, and that varying charges are made by the different companies; also that there is a great deal of feeling in London against charging by the therm. We should consider it a very
friendly act if a member of the London County Council were placed on the Committee.

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: If I did that, I might be asked to appoint representatives of every single authority, great and small. I have tried to appoint a Committee which I think very strong but small and really representative of the consumer. I hope the London County Council will give evidence before the Committee.

Mr. HARDIE: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered that large seams of coal differ in their therm value, and could not therefore some investigation be made into the class of coal used for making gas?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: No doubt the Committee will consider that, if it be relevant to the discussion.

LASCAR CREWS.

12. Mr. GILBERT: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether steamship companies who bring lascar crews to British home ports are under any liability to provide housing accommodation and food to either discharged or waiting crews of Eastern origin; if so, can he briefly state what the Regulations are in the matter, and if such housing is subject to any inspection by his Department; and how many officials are employed for this purpose?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton): I have been asked to answer this question. I have recently had an opportunity of inspecting personally the accommodation available for Lascar seamen at the London Docks and have come to the conclusion that there is room for considerable improvement in certain cases. My Noble Friend the Secretary of State for India and I are now discussing the matter, and I have taken up with the Board of Trade the question of action in connection with it. I shall be glad to inform the hon. Member in due course of any decision which may be arrived at.

Mr. SHINWELL: Will the Department at the same time inquire into the housing accommodation provided for white sea-
men in various ports of this country? Cannot steps be taken to prevent crews being shipped on vessels to be paid off at British ports so that they shall not be discharged in this country?

Earl WINTERTON: The whole question requires careful consideration, and it will receive it at the hands of the Secretary of State and myself.

Mr. GILBERT: 17.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his Department have any control over the rates of wages that are paid to Lascar crews on British boats using Home ports; whether, if contracts made in the East are not kept in this country by the steamship owners, the Lascar sailor has any appeal to his Department, or what is the man's remedy; and can he make any general statement on the subject?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: The answer is rather long, and, with the hon. Member's permission, I will have it circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The Board of Trade have no control over the rates of wages at which Lascar crews are engaged for service in British ships. Lascars are normally engaged at ports in India on a form of agreement prescribed by the Government of India under the Indian Merchant Shipping Acts; they are not, as a rule, discharged in this country, and, if transferred to another ship, the agreement which they sign in India normally remains in force. Any such transfer at a port in the United Kingdom must be made under the supervision, and with the approval, of a Lascar Transfer Officer, who is generally a member of the staff of the Board of Trade, but holds a special appointment from the India Office as Lascar Transfer Officer. If any question as to non-fulfilment of the terms of the agreement with a Lascar should arise in this country, the Lascar's proper course would be to appeal to the Lascar Transfer Officer. As, however, Lascars are not ordinarily paid off until their return to India, questions arising out of the contract, that is, the Lascar agreement, usually fall to be determined by a Government Officer at the port of discharge in India.

Oral Answers to Questions — SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES ACT.

DUTIES COLLECTED.

Mr. LINFIELD: 13.
asked the President of the Board of Trade how much revenue has been collected out o£ the taxes imposed by the Safeguarding of Industries Act; and by how much the expenditure of the Customs, including the expenses for experts and referees, has gone up since the passing of this Act?

Mr. BALDWIN: The revenue collected in Great Britain and Ireland under Parts I and II of the Safeguarding of Industries Act up to and including the 8th December inclusive was £445,324. As regards the last part of the question, the expenditure of the Customs has, in fact, decreased since the passing of the Act.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any figure for the cost which has be en thrown on industry in reference to these inquiries and other matters connected with the Act?

Mr. BALDWIN: I shall be very glad to consider any figures that may be put before me.

DOMESTIC GLASSWARE.

Major McKENZIE WOOD: 16.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the quantities of domestic glassware imported during the first six months of 1922 from Germany and Belgium, respectively?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: The quantities of domestic and fancy glassware (including cooking utensils, table glassware, and ornamental glassware) imported into the United Kingdom, and registered during the first six months of the year 1922 as consigned from Germany and from Belgium, were 41,045 and 86,682 cwts., respectively.

Major WOOD: Does not that show that the danger to the industry in this country is from Belgium, and can the right hon. Gentleman say why Belgium was not included in the duties imposed in the Safeguarding of Industries Act?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: Yes, because in the case of Belgium there was no proof that there was a bounty. I think that
if any question were asked of those interested in the industry, they would say that half a loaf was better than no bread.

Major WOOD: How is it going to help the industry here1?

RAMIE YARN.

Major ENTWISTLE: 22.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether be has received a complaint, under Part II of the Safeguarding of Industries Act, in regard to imports of ramie yarn; and, if so, whether he proposes to refer the complaint to a Committee of Inquiry?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: It has been the consistent practice of the Board of Trade not to publish information regarding any particular complaint received by the Board unless it is referred to a Committee. I am sure it will be readily appreciated that it is desirable to adhere to this practice.

Oral Answers to Questions — PEACE TREATIES.

ENEMY ACTION (COMPENSATION CLAIMS).

Mr. PENNEFATHER: 18.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the Reparation Claims Department sent a postcard to Mr. James Hutton, of 56, Melbourne Street, Liverpool, on the 10th September, 1920, stating that his claims in regard to being torpedoed would have attention, but that this seaman has not since heard anything further during the last 27 months; and will he have inquiries made into the matter?

Sir P. LLOYD - GREAME: Mr. Button's claim will be dealt with in the first Interim Report of the Royal Commission on Compensation for Suffering and Damage by Enemy Action. As soon as the Government receives this Report, steps will be taken to award compensation in accordance with the Royal Commission's recommendation. If it is suggested that Mr. Hutton should be treated specially on the ground that he is suffering exceptional hardship or urgent need, I am prepared to have inquiries made with a view to seeing whether any advance can properly be made to him.

Mr. HAYDAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many thousands of
others there are who have been waiting an equally long time?

Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise on this question.

Brigadier - General Sir OWEN THOMAS: 26.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will order an inquiry into the case of those men permanently disabled by the rigour of their captivity in the desert, where for 21 weeks the Turks and Arabs detained them in a practically starving condition after they had got ashore from the wreck of their vessel, the London and North-Western Railway Company's steamer "Tara," of Holyhead, commandeered by the Government as a patrol boat; and is he aware that some of the men died in tins desert and on the way home after rescue as the result of starvation, and that the remainder, with a few exceptions, are physical wrecks, incapable of returning to full work for the rest of their lives, but ineligible for pensions in the ordinary way, notwithstanding their War service?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: The cases of the men who lost their lives or were disabled as a result of their experiences after the s.s. "Tara" was sunk have been dealt with under the War Risks Compensation Scheme for the Mercantile Marine. Pensions are being paid in the case of a number of men who lost their lives, and disablement allowances are being paid in other cases. If the hon. and gallant Member has any particular case in mind in which death or disablement is regarded as due to the man's experiences after the "Tara" was sunk, and in which no compensation has been paid, I will have inquiries made into the case if he will send me full particulars.

Brigadier-General THOMAS: Does the right hon. Gentleman know that I am asking about the living, and not the dead?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: My answer applies to both the living and the dead. If the hon. and gallant Member has any case which could properly have been dealt with under this scheme and has not been dealt with, I hope he will send it to me, and I will look into it.

Major - General Sir NEWTON MOORE: 72.
asked the Prime Minister whether the payments on account of awards for compensation which are to be made in the course of the next few
months owing to the success of the Public Trustee in liquidating German property in this country are payments on account of civilian War damages; if he will say what amount is expected to be available for division: and what percentage of the claims admitted this represents?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I have been asked to reply. The payments which it is hoped to make shortly on account of claims for compensation are in respect of claims arising out of the treatment of British property in Germany under exceptional War measures. It has not yet been decided what dividend can be paid and it will of course be necessary to take into account the claims which have been lodged, but have not yet been assessed, as well as those which have been assessed.

GERMAN REPARATION (BRITISH COAL).

Mr. W. JENKINS: 20.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has any information to the effect that Germany is, or has been, sending British coal to France as reparation payment; and, if so, whether he can give the approximate tonnage so delivered?

Lieut.-Colonel LANE-FOX: No, Sir, I am informed by the Reparation Commission that no British coal has been delivered by Germany to France as reparation.

EX-ENEMY SHIPS.

Mr. SHINWELL: 24.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will furnish a Return showing the number of ex-enemy ships sold by Lord Inchcape on behalf of the Reparation Committee, the tonnage of each ship so sold, the buyer, the price and the name before and after the sale, the total sum received in respect of such vessels and the amount, if any, unpaid by purchasers, the expenditure involved in selling the ships, and the uses to which the balance has been applied?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: There is no objection to giving detailed information about the sales of the ex-emeny ships, showing the price and the name of the buyer in each case. I will consider in what form the information can be given and communicate with the hon. Member.

Mr. SHINWELL: Is there any reason why the whole of the information asked for cannot be furnished"

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: A good deal of detail is asked for here, and I should like to go into it.

Mr. SPEAKER: Sir Harry Brittain.

Mr. SHINWELL: May I ask—
Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. HALL: Mr. Speaker, may I ask whether the hon. Member (Mr. Shinwell) is in order in speaking after you have called a subsequent question?

Mr. SPEAKER: I think the hon. Member might be allowed to put this supplementary question.

Mr. SHINWELL: May I ask whether the details to which the right hon. Gentleman refers will be furnished if they are asked for?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: That is precisely the question which I have answered.

AUSTRIA (NATIONAL DEBT).

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: 38.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received information which will enable him to say what are to be the proportionate allocations of the national debt of the old Austro-Hungarian Empire among the States which formerly constituted that Empire?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Ronald McNeill): I understand that certain proposals have been laid before the Reparation Commission, but that no decision has been arrived at.

Mr. SAMUEL: Will my hon. Friend endeavour to obtain information, because the Board of Trade is unable to collect British claims until they get it?

Mr. McNEILL: I will do what I can.

GERMAN WAR CRIMINALS (TRIAL).

Sir ELLIS HUME-WILLIAMS: 54.
asked the Prime Minister what arrangements the Government propose to make so as to secure the speedy trial of the remaining Germans who were scheduled by the Committee on Breaches of the Laws of War as having been guilty of cruelty to British prisoners of War?

The PRIME MINISTER: I regret that I can make no statement on this subject at present.

GERMANY (INTERNAL RESOURCES).

Sir W. DAVISON: 67.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in any discussion as to reparations at the forthcoming meeting in London between himself and the French, Belgian, and Italian Prime Minsters, he will see that the attention of the Conference is drawn to the vast internal resources of Germany, contribution;? from which would not affect employment in this country, such as timber, wood-pulp, nitrates, sugar, etc., as well as Germany's large transfer of wealth to foreign countries, estimated by Mr. Reginald McKenna at not less than £200,000,000 sterling?

The PRIME MINISTER: I think that my hon. Friend can be quite sure all such considerations will be borne in mind, not only by His Majesty's Government, but by (he other Governments concerned.

CROWN FORESHORES.

Mr. SHORT: 19.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the proceeds of the sales and of other dealings in Crown foreshores are paid into public funds;. and, if so, whether, seeing that Returns of such dealings would be of interest to, at least, the public of all the coastal districts of the country, he will take steps to have a statement of dealings in foreshores published and placed on sale and the local authorities of every coastal district informed that this has been done and where the statement can be purchased?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: The proceeds arising from the dealings with Crown foreshores under the management of the Board of Trade are paid into public funds, and it has been the practice to publish particulars of these dealings as a House of Commons Paper every five years, the last Return, relating to the years 1912–16, being published in 1919. A further return for the years 1917–21 was prepared, but, as the sales receipts for the return of 1919 amounted to less than £l, whereas the cost of printing the Return for 1917–21 is estimated at £90, the Board, in consultation with the Treasury, decided that, looking to the urgent need for
economy in public expenditure, the continued publication of the Return is not justified.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

SEIZURE OF BRITISH STOCKS.

Captain ERSKINE-BOLST: 23.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that English merchants holding stocks of Russian produce in Russia prior to the War found, on the outbreak of war, that they were prevented from carrying on their normal trade, and in consequence received cash advances from banks in this country on the security of the goods stored in Russia, and that these goods have since been seized by the Russian Government and, in consequence of the interpretation placed upon the Anglo-Russian Trade Agreement, many of these merchants arc practically faced with ruin; and whether he will make a statement on the subject?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I am aware that serious hardship has been caused in many cases by the action of the Russian Government in confiscating property without paying compensation; and, as I stated in a previous answer, His Majesty's Government will not fail to take all practicable steps to secure an equitable settlement.

TRAWLER "MAGNETA" (ARREST).

Major ENTWISTLE: 80.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that the Russian Government have repudiated, on the grounds of vis major, the claim for compensation which was put forward on behalf of the owners of the steam trawler "Magneta" and of the dependants of those members of the crew who perished when the vessel, while under illegal arrest, was wrecked off the coast of Murmansk, His Majesty's Government will accept the responsibility for the said compensation pending the determination of this question, when a final and comprehensive treaty of peace is concluded with Russia?

Mr. McNEILL: I regret that it is not possible for His Majesty's Government to accept any responsibility in this connection.

Major ENTWISTLE: In view of the fact that it will probably be a very long time before we get this final treaty with
Russia, and in view of the great need of these people, are there not any funds out of which the Government could make interim compensation?

Mr. McNEILL: I am not aware of any.

Major ENTWISTLE: Will the hon. Gentleman inquire and see whether, in the meantime, some payment of compensation could not be made on account, until something is obtained from Russia?

Mr. McNEILL: I think that question was fully answered to the hon. and gallant Member in the last Parliament.

Mr. HARDIE: If the Government cannot get funds to meet this case, where did they get funds to bring Prince Andrew away from Greece?

CHINA (IMPOSTS ON BRITISH TRADERS).

Mr. HANNON: 35.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the illegal imposts made by certain unauthorised bodies on British river traders in China; and whether His Majesty's Government will make representations to the Chinese Government to secure the removal of this abuse?

Mr. McNEILL: I am afraid I cannot answer this question without more exact information regarding the cases to which the hon. Member is referring.

FRANCE AND POLAND.

Mr. MOREL: 37.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if His Majesty's Government has any information as to the existence of a military convention between France and Poland; if he can state what is now the position as to the registration of treaties and conventions between States members of the League of Nations with the Secretariat of the League; and whether provision for such registration is concerned merely with political instruments and not with military instruments?

Mr. McNEILL: An agreement containing a military Clause was published in the French "Temps" on 22nd February, 1921. As regards the second and third parts of
the question, I would refer the hon. Member to Article 18 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, in which it is laid down that every treaty or international engagement shall be registered with the Secretariat of the League.

CHANNEL TUNNEL.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 39.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can see his way to inquire of the French Government their present attitude with regard to the Channel tunnel; and, if favourable, will he inquire further as to how far they would be prepared to go to assist in its construction?

Mr. McNEILL: I must refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him by the Prime Minister on the 4th instant. As His Majesty's Government are not at present prepared to consider the question, there is obviously no Advantage in adopting the hon. Member's suggestion.

Viscount CURZON: 63.
asked the Prime Minister how long the question of the construction of the Channel tunnel has been under consideration; why it is that the Government are not prepared to consider this scheme at present, in view- of the prevailing conditions of unemployment and of the direct employment that approval of this scheme would give to railway, steel, and general workers in particular; whether any application has ever been made to the Government for any direct or indirect assistance from Government sources; whether he is aware that the whole cost of all the works would be borne by the Chemin de Fer du Nord and the South Eastern Fail way; and, in all the circumstances, whether the Government can now come to a decision upon this matter or at least advance adequate reasons for any further delay in view of the condition?

The PRIME MINISTER: I regret that I cannot add anything to the answer which I gave to my Noble Friend on the 4th December.

Viscount CURZON: Are we to understand that the. matter is still under consideration or that it has been definitely turned down?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am not quite sure, but I believe that it was definitely
turned down by the last Government. If it is really the case and can be shown to me that private individuals are ready to start with their own money, I will promise to have it reconsidered.

Viscount CURZON: If requested to do so, will the right hon. Gentleman consent to receive a deputation on the matter?

The PRIME MINISTER: No, I think it unnecessary to do BO. The condition which I have laid down is a reasonable one. If reasonable guarantees are given that the money is available, I would have it reconsidered.

Captain Viscount CURZON: Do I understand my hon. Friend to say the Government are not prepared to consider the question?

Mr. McNEILL: If the Noble Lord will refer to the answer to which I referred, given by the Prime Minister, he will see what ho says.

Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: Is it not a fact that all sections of French opinion have for years declared, not only their readiness, but. their eagerness to have this tunnel established, and are there not—at least I gather so from the papers—private firms both in England and in France who are willing to undertake this job without assistance from the Government of England or of France?

Mr. McNEILL: Really, I do not think it is possible for me to make any statement with regard to the state of French public opinion.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

FAUMEKS (STATE ASSISTANCE).

Captain TERRELL: 40.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he is now in a position to make any definite statement as to the assistance or relief which the State is prepared to give to helping farmers who may find themselves in acute, financial difficulty owing to the absence of capital entailed by the purchase of their holdings?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Sir Robert Sanders): I am not yet in a position to make any statement on this subject, but I hope to receive the Report of the Committee which is considering the matter before the end of this year.

PRICES (COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY).

Captain TERRELL: 41.
asked the Minister of Agriculture the personnel of the Departmental Committee which is inquiring into the methods of selling and distributing agricultural, horticultural, and dairy produce; whether the proceedings will be public; whether evidence will be taken from representative bodies anxious to volunteer it in addition to those who may be officially invited to give evidence; and whether the investigations will be carried on during the holidays, so as to permit of the Report being published and any desirable action being taken thereon before the commencement of the Spring?

Sir R. SANDERS: The Committee will be constituted as follows:—

The Marquess of Linlithgow (Chairman).
The hon. Member for the Louth Division of Lincolnshire.
The hon. Member for the Frome Division of Somerset.
Sir Basil Mayhew, K.B.E., a well-known accountant.
Mr. Ernest N. Debenham, Chairman of Debenhams, Ltd.
Mr. Rowland R. Robbins, C.B.K., ex-Chairman of the National Farmers' Union.
Mr. A. W. Ashby, of the Institute of Agricultural Economics, Oxford.
Mr. R. J. Thompson, Assistant Secretary of the Ministry of Agriculture;
and a Scottish representative nominated by the Secretary for Scotland.
It will be for the Committee to decide whether their proceedings will be public, but I may say that it is not the usual practice in the case of Departmental Committees. I have no doubt that the Committee will be glad to receive evidence from representative bodies who desire to offer it, and it is the intention t-Hat the Committee should begin their work at once.

Captain TERRELL: Will the Committee carry on their investigations during the holidays?

Sir R. SANDERS: That is for the Committee to decide.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that a representative of the Labour party is a member of the Committee?

Sir R. SANDERS: I communicated, through the usual official channels, with the Chairman of the Labour party, and, on his advice, I nominated Mr. A. W. Ashby.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Who is the representative of the consumers on the Committee?

Sir R. SANDERS: I think they are all consumers.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he received a request that a consumers' representative should be appointed, and whether that request has been refused?

Sir R. SANDERS: I said they are all consumers.

Mr. ROYCE: 43.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will extend the scope of the Departmental Inquiry into the conditions of agriculture so as to include all goods a farmer has to purchase, such as artificial fertilisers and agricultural implements, and to ascertain the cause of the difference, which is out of all proportion to the pre-War difference, in the prices of raw materials and the manufactured article?

Sir R. SANDERS: It is proposed that the inquiry to which the hon. Member refers should relate to agricultural, horticultural and dairy produce, and I do not think it is desirable to extend its scope to articles such as fertilisers and machinery.

STATISTICS.

Mr. RILEY: 44.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he can state the comparative figures of the average rent per acre of arable land in England and Wales in 1871, 1891, and 1921; the total number of agricultural labourers; and the number of labourers employed on the land per 100 acres in the respective years?

Sir R. SANDERS: As the reply is somewhat lengthy, and includes a number of figures, I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

I am unable to give comparative figures of the rent, either of agricultural land as a whole or of arable land taken separately. The total number of agricul-
tural labourers of all classes, male and female, in England and Wales, as ascertained at the decennial census in 1871, was 1,074,029, and in 1991 was 866,199. These figures include relatives assisting on the farm, farm bailiffs, foremen, and shepherds, as well as ordinary agricultural labourers. The number of labourers per 100 acres of agricultural land under crops or permanent grass was 4.1 in 1871 and 3.1 in 1891. The figures for the census of 1921 have not yet been published, but information collected with the annual Agricultural Returns in 1921 shows that the total number of regular and casual labourers employed on agricultural holdings on 4th June, 1921, was 869,183, or 3.3 per 100 acres of agricultural land under crops or permanent grass. These figures, however, are not strictly comparable with those obtained at the decennial census.

CONDITIONS AND DEVELOPMENT (TRIBUNAL OF INVESTIGATION).

Mr. ROYCE: 64.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will state the Terms of Reference of the Committee which is to inquire into the conditions of agriculture?

Mr. HARRIS: 71.
asked the Prime Minister whether, if he decides to appoint a Committee of Inquiry into the condition of agriculture in this country, he will consider including on the Committee someone with knowledge of the land system and methods of farming in Australia, New Zealand, or Canada?

The PRIME MINISTER: After consultation with my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) as to the form of the inquiry for which he asked in his speech in the Debate on the Address, the Government propose to set up a Tribunal of Investigation, consisting of three well-known economists, with the following reference:
To inquire into the methods which have been adopted in other countries during the last 50 years to increase the prosperity of agriculture and to secure the fullest possible use of the land for the production of food and the employment of labour at a living wage, and to advise as to the methods by which those results could be achieved in this country.
The terms of reference will, of course, include consideration of the methods adopted in the Dominions as well as in foreign countries.

Mr. RILEY: Will the terms of reference include a full consideration of the question of rent?

The PRIME MINISTER: I think it obvious that the terms of reference which I have given would include every relevant element for consideration.

Mr. MACPHERSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the names of the three economists?

The PRIME MINISTER: No. They have not yet been chosen.

Mr. HARRIS: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the inclusion of an economist with personal knowledge of agriculture in the Dominions beyond the sea?

The PRIME MINISTER: Among those who will be considering this there must be several who have given consideration to that subject. Otherwise they would not think themselves competent to deal with the whole question of agriculture.

Mr. LAMBERT: Why should economists be appointed? Why not men who understand something about land?

The PRIME MINISTER: We have had lots of Commissions, as my right hon. Friend knows, of men who understand something about the land. The idea, as I understood, was that we were to try to get entirely away from interested people, either from the point of view of money or of property.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Will economists be chosen because of their knowledge of agricultural co-operation?

The PRIME MINISTER: Any economist who has made a study of agriculture must have studied that aspect of the question.

ROYAL NAVY (NEW BATTLESHIPS).

Viscount CURZON: 45 and 62.
asked the Prime Minister (1) whether, in view of the fact that the ships must be laid down under the Washington Treaty by 31st December next, and in order to maintain the one-Power standard, he can now state whether the orders for the two new battleships have been given out;
(2) whether he is aware that two of the Powers who signed the Washington
Treaty have not as yet ratified it. and show no inclination to do so; that the British Empire alone has scrapped all the ships specified in the Treaty except H.M.S. "Lion"; that at the present moment the British Empire stands third among the Powers of the world at sea in capital ships; that Parliament is pledged to maintain a one-Power standard; whether he can state what steps His Majesty's Government intends to take in view of this situation; and whether an opportunity can be given to discuss the naval situation before the House rises?

The PRIME MINISTER: It has been decided to lay down the? two ships referred to. As regards Question No. 62, it is not possible to deal with the subject raised by question and answer, and I regret that I cannot arrange for a discussion of it before the House rises.

Captain BENN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is the financial commitment of this country involved in his reply?

The PRIME MINISTER: I shall require notice of that question.

Mr. HOGGE: Seeing that the right hon. Gentleman cannot give time for discussion before we rise, will the work on the ships actually be begun before we have a discussion?

The PRIME MINISTER: Yes. As the House knows, this subject was decided both by the House and by the late Government. We have reconsidered it, and think that we have no option but to proceed.

Mr. HOGGE: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that this is a new House, that he has formed a new Government, and is the House not to have an opportunity of discussing the matter?

The PRIME MINISTER: When the subject is discussed, the hon. Member will find that it was not possible to delay it beyond this year.

SHALE AND OIL INDUSTRY, SCOTLAND.

Mr. SHINWELL: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether, before any definite step is taken by the Government to dispose of its holding in the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, due care will be exercised
to ensure that the shale and oil industry in Scotland, and the interests of those who depend for a livelihood thereon, will be protected?

Mr. BALDWIN: No definite step of the kind indicated is at present contemplated. All relevant considerations will no doubt be taken into account, should occasion ever arise.

PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION.

Mr. FOOT: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the fact that so many Members of this House represent only a minority of the electors in their constituencies, he will consider the introduction of such legislative pro posals, by way of proportional representation or otherwise, as will remedy the existing anomalies?

The PRIME MINISTER: The answer is in the negative.

WOMEN FRANCHISE.

Mr. FOOT: 48.
asked the Prime Minister whether any figures are available showing what addition to the electorate would result from granting the vote to women at the age of 21 instead of at the age of 30?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Bridge-man): I have been asked to reply. Exact information is not available, but it is estimated that the enfranchisement of women at the age of 21 years instead of 30 would—if the other conditions and qualifications for women franchise remained as at present—increase the electorate of Great Britain and Northern Ireland by one million and three-quarters approximately.

FINANCIAL BUSINESS.

Mr. ALBERT BENNETT: 49.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Government will consider the desirability of so arranging business during the coming Session that proposals involving the expenditure of money shall not be discussed after midnight, and that no financial business, not actually commenced before 11 p.m., shall be taken after that hour?

The PRIME MINISTER: As far as possible, this will be done.

Mr. LANSBURY: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of the House meeting at 10 o'clock in the morning? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]

Oral Answers to Questions — IRELAND.

CIVIL SERVANTS' CLAIMS.

Sir F. HALL: 50.
asked the Prime Minister what action will be taken to ensure the carrying out of the undertaking given on behalf of the Government by the Secretary of State for the Colonies to the effect that the Government accepts responsibility for seeing that full justice is done to the claims of Irish civil servants who were in the service of the Crown at the time of the change of Government in Southern Ireland; whether arrangements will be made that will secure that the officers affected, established and unestablished, shall receive pensions or other compensation on retirement on as favourable a basis as would have been the case had they continued to hold their offices under the British Government; whether representatives of the two Governments will confer in order to determine what officers are to be deemed to be covered by the assurances which have been given on the subject, as to the terms on which pensions are to be granted, and as to the allocation of cost as between the British and the Free State Exchequers; and whether legislation will be introduced next year to enable the British Government to carry out its obligations in the matter?

Mr. BALDWIN: Article 10 of the Treaty and Article 78 of the Irish Free State Constitution provide for the payment of compensation by the Free State on terms not less favourable than those accorded by the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, to Irish civil servants who are discharged by it or who retire in consequence of the change of Government. The Free State Government have already taken steps to carry out these arrangements by appointing a Committee to deal with all claims by the persons affected. The Irish Civil Service have two representatives on the Committee, which is presided over by a distinguished Irish Judge, in whom, I am sure, all parties concerned have the fullest confidence.
In these circumstances I am not prepared to intervene in the matter on the lines suggested, and I see no necessity for the introduction of legislation on the subject.

BOUNDARY COMMISSION (CHAIRMAN).

Sir J. SIMON: 84.
asked the Prime Minister if he will state what steps the Government propose to take that the Chairman of the Boundary Commission referred to in Article 12 of the Irish Treaty will be a person acceptable both to the Irish Free State and to the Government of Northern Ireland?

The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot add anything to the reply which I gave to the lion, and gallant Member for Leith Boroughs (Captain W. Benn) on the 7th December.

UNMARRIED MOTHERS.

Mr. WIGNALL: 53.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Government will grant facilities for the passage of comprehensive legislation for the protection of the unmarried mother and her child on lines similar to the laws that have been in existence in Norway since 1915?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am not at present in a position to make any state-men!: on this subject.

Oral Answers to Questions — GREECE.

PRINCE ANDREW (BRITISH CRUISERS).

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: 55.
asked the Prime Minister which Department of State requested the Board of Admiralty to send a British cruiser to Greece to give a passage to Prince Andrew of Greece after his trial; whether Prince Andrew was considered to be in personal danger after his trial and sentence to banishment; whether no merchant ship or passenger liner was available for the use of Prince Andrew; to which port Prince Andrew was conveyed; whether the cruiser was available for other Greeks seeking safety; whether other Greeks applied for passage or assistance; and whether they were given such passage?

The PRIME MINISTER: It was by a decision of the Government that the British cruiser was available to give passage to Prince Andrew of Greece, after his trial, to Brindisi. The answer to the
second part of the question is in the affirmative, and to the fifth part that as far as I am aware no other Greeks similarly situated were seeking safety on the date in question. The rest of the question does not therefore arise.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider curtailing the use of the British Navy for carrying deposed potentates and princes?

Mr. LANSBURY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, arising out of disturbances connected with a strike in South Africa, eight British subjects are liable to be executed, and will he or someone connected with the Government make representations to General Smuts to get a reprieve?

Mr. SPEAKER: South Africa is a self-governing Dominion.

Mr. LANSBURY: What about Greece?

CORRESPONDENCE.

Mr. LAMBERT: 83.
asked the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the responsibility of members of Governments to the country, he will publish Papers which will contain a complete synopsis of the doings of the British Government with the Greek Government from the date of the Armistice to the demise of the late Administration?

Sir J. SIMON: 86.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will lay upon the Table Papers relating to the Near East either from the date of the armistice with Turkey or from the date of ex-King Constantine's return?

The PRIME MINISTER: I think it would be undesirable that Papers should be laid on this subject at a time when the Lausanne Conference is going on. During the Recess, however, the subject will be carefully considered.

Mr. LAMBERT: May we have a pledge that the Papers will be laid after the proceedings at Lausanne are completed?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have promised that the question as to what Paper shall be laid will be carefully considered during the Recess. Perhaps my right hon. Friend will put down a question later.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the Prime Minister aware that that assur-
ance means nothing to us at all and that it gives him the right to pick and choose exactly what Papers shall be laid? Are we not entitled to have the whole of them?

The PRIME MINISTER: The hon. and gallant Member is mistaken. If I undertake to lay Papers in reply to a request later by my right hon. Friend, I shall describe correctly what Papers will be laid.

Sir J. SIMON: Will the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to give an assurance that, if he see his way to lay Papers, he will not wait until the House meets before the preparation is made?

The PRIME MINISTER: I will consider that question.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 87.
asked the Prime Minister whether he has yet satisfied the Coalition ex-Ministers that they did indeed sec and approve of the Gounaris-Curzon correspondence?

The PRIME MINISTER: As I promised, in answer to a supplementary question on Thursday last, I have made further inquiries. The facts arc as follow:
M. Gounaris' Note, dated the 15th February, was received in the Foreign Office on the 16th February, and was circulated to the Cabinet in print on the 24th February. Lord Curzon's reply of the 6th March was circulated to the Cabinet in print on the 9th March. Both these documents are in the files of the Cabinet Offices, and the records of the Foreign Office show that they were circulated in the usual way to the Cabinet.

Captain ARTHUR EVANS: Does not the Prime Minister consider that the assurance of the ex-Ministers is sufficient, in view of the fact that they have all stated that they did not see these documents?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: May I ask whether this was the ordinary method of conducting Cabinet business, in spite of having a Cabinet Secretariat?

The PRIME MINISTER: Invariably documents issued by the Foreign Office were circulated by them, and copies were sent to the Cabinet Secretariat.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: My right hon. Friend promised also on Thursday last to look up the Cabinet records, and to see whether the letter came before the Cabinet.

The PRIME MINISTER: No, that question was never asked.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think so.

The PRIME MINISTER: I think not. The question was whether it was in the Cabinet Secretariat's Office. So far as I know—and I have made inquiry—it did not come before the Cabinet. But, of course, that depends on individual Cabinet Ministers, who could bring it up if they chose.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Was it marked "urgent" or "important" or anything of that sort?

The PRIME MINISTER: The assumption is that every document which is considered to be of sufficient importance to be circulated is important.

Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to give any explanation why a document, the neglect of which has sent Greece to ruin and several of her Ministers to the scaffold, was not considered by the Cabinet?

OLD AGE PENSIONS.

Mr. HURD: 57.
asked the Prime Minister whether consideration is being given to the suggestion of Sir Halford Mackinder that, in order to encourage thrift, savings invested in national savings certificates or deposited in the Post Office and trustee savings banks should not be reckoned against the award of an Old Age Pension?

Mr. BALDWIN: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by me on this subject on Tuesday last to my hon. Friend the Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon).

Mr. HURD: In view of the strong feeling on this subject amongst electors of all parties in the country, would it not be possible to go into this question again with a view to making the old ago pension an encouragement and not a deterrent to thrift?

Mr. BALDWIN: I do not think so at present.

HOUSE OF COMMONS (PROCEDUBE RULES).

Mr. ROBERT MURRAY: 58.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will promote inquiry into the Forms, Procedure, and Rules of this House, with a view to simplifying them and making a more economical use of the time of the House?

The PRIME MINISTER: I do not see the necessity at present of adopting the hon. Member's proposal.

CIVIL SERVICE (ARMY AND NAVY OFFICERS).

Lieut.-Colonel POWNALL: 59.
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the action of the Government of India in offering a number of vacancies in the Indian Civil Service to Army officers who have been retired owing to the reductions in establishments; and if he will consider the desirability of similar action with regard to the Home Civil Service and Army and Navy officers who may be forced to leave the services?

Mr. BALDWIN: I have been asked to reply. The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I am afraid that, in view of the reductions which have been and are being effected in the staffs of the Home Service, it is impossible to adopt the suggestion in the last part of the question.

RENT RESTRICTIONS ACT.

Mr. R. MURRAY: 60.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the importance to Scottish tenants of the Rent Restrictions Act Inquiry, he will have a representative or representatives of such tenants appointed to the Committee on the subject?

The PRIME MINISTER: This Committee is not representative of any specific interests either of landlords or of tenants, but it is obtaining the views, both in writing and orally, of all parties in any way interested in the question. The Committee has already, in fact, heard a representative of the Scottish National Labour Housing Association.

Mr. MACPHERSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when this Committee will report?

The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot say.

FRANCHISE (FISHERMEN).

Mr. FREDERICK MARTIN: 65.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that at the recent General Election many hundreds of Scottish fishermen were disfranchised owing to the fact that they were at the time absent from their own constituencies, being engaged in the pursuit of their calling at English fishing ports; and whether he will be prepared so to amend the Representation of the People Act as to enable fishermen temporarily absent from home at the date of a Parliamentary Election to record their votes for the constituencies in which they are registered?

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Sir John Baird): I have been asked to reply on behalf of the Secretary for Scotland, who has received representations to the effect indicated in the first part of the question. It is regretted that these fishermen should have been unable to record their votes, but the Representation of the People Act makes provision to meet the case of fishermen and others who are liable to be absent from home at the time of an Election. Such persons can claim to be placed on the absent voters' list, and if placed on that list can vote by post or proxy. It does not therefore appear to my Noble, Friend that any amendment of the Act is required.

Mr. MARTIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the difficulty would be obviated, and the general interest secured if Prime Ministers would in future select summer time for the date of General Elections?

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

WOMEN.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: 66.
asked the Prime Minister what steps will be taken by the Government to provide work for unemployed women, seeing that in Scotland alone there are at present 22,937 women out of work?

Major BOYD-CARPENTER: I have been asked to reply. I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 5th December to questions on the subject of unemployment among women addressed to me by the hon. Member for Shettleston and Rotherham, to which I may add that
there is a Scottish Committee on Women's Training and Employment administering in Scotland the scheme for home-craft training.

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS (CLOTHING).

Sir. J. SIMON: 85.
asked the Prime Minister whether any instructions have been issued to Government Departments to anticipate their requirements in the matter of clothing and other necessary supplies by issuing immediate orders and thereby to diminish the existing unemployment and at the same time obtain their supplies at a lower cost?

Mr. BALDWIN: Proposals to accelerate orders are already under consideration, but the assistance which can be given to unemployment in this way is restricted by the large stocks on hand as a result of the War, and the subsequent decreases of establishments, both military and civil.

Mr. PRINGLE: Does the answer apply to the Post Office?

Mr. BALDWIN: Yes.

CIVIL SERVANTS (OATH OF ALLEGIANCE).

Sir W. DAVISON: 68.
asked the Prime Minister whether any classes of civil servants have recently been freed from the obligation of taking the oath of allegiance; what classes of civil servants are now exempt from this obligation; and whether he will introduce in the next Session of Parliament such legislation as may be necessary to secure that all persons in the employ of the Crown or of local authorities which are directly or indirectly in receipt of State aid shall be required to take the oath of allegiance?

Mr. BALDWIN: All clerical and administrative officers serving in an established capacity in the Civil Service were required to take the oath of allegiance by a Regulation of the 2nd August, 1918, made under the Defence of the Realm Act. This Regulation automatically ceased to have effect with the official end of the War. I am not prepared to adopt the suggestion contained in the last part of the question.

Sir W. DAVISON: What is the objection to people in the employment of the Crown taking the oath of allegiance?

Mr. BALDWIN: It has never been the practice in the Civil Service, and I have complete confidence.

Sir W. DAVISON: Is it a question of honour, considering that all members of the Army and Navy have to take the oath of allegiance?

ESTIMATES COMMITTEE.

Lieut.-Colonel POWNALL: 69.
asked the Prime Minister what decision has been arrived at with regard to the setting up of an Estimates Committee in the next Session; and whether, if one is to be set up, it can be given wider powers under its reference than has been the case hitherto?

Mr. BALDWIN: If my hon. and gallant Friend will put down his question again for Thursday I will then be in a position to make a statement on this matter.

Captain BENN: Will the terms of reference be given as well as the decision?

Mr. BALDWIN: Yes.

HOME RULE (SCOTLAND).

Mr. C. WHITE: 73.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will introduce and pass into law in the next Session of Parliament a Scottish Home Rule Bill with an entirely separate Parliament for Scotland?

The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir. I am not prepared to adopt the hon. Member's suggestion.

Mr. PRINGLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the present Secretary for Scotland was once responsible for a Home Rule Bill in this House? Did the Noble Lord make it a condition of joining the Government that that would be the policy of the Government?

The PRIME MINISTER: I dare say that, like many hon. Members, he has been responsible for many things in the past with which he does not agree now.

PARLIAMENT (DATE OF REASSEMBLING).

Mr. HOGGE: 74.
asked the Prime Minister whether he can now say that Parliament will reassemble at such a date in the new year as will permit of the Government having sufficient time to complete their own business before the end of the financial year and yet retain for private Members their usual privileges up to Easter?

The PRIME MINISTER: If the House rises on Friday, I think it will be possible to carry out the hon. Member's suggestion.

CABINET MINISTERS (SALARIES).

Mr. HOGGE: 75.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in forming his Cabinet, he took into consideration the recommendations of the late Speaker's Committee with regard to the equalisation of Minister's salaries; and, if not, whether he will now consider the advisability of doing so?

The PRIME MINISTER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, and as regards the last part I am not prepared to take it into consideration at present.

Mr. HOGGE: Why, when the Committee reported on a specific difficulty which faces every Prime Minister and every Government and when there was a re-arrangement of posts in the Government, did the right hon. Gentleman not make these alterations?

The PRIME MINISTER: If the hon. Gentleman ever has the responsibility of forming a Cabinet, he will realise that that cannot always be done.

Mr. MACPHERSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared now to consider the question of raising the status of the Secretary for Scotland?

MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (RAILWAY WARRANTS).

Mr. HOGGE: 76.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is prepared to consider issuing free railway warrants for Members of Parliament to and from their constituencies?

The PRIME MINISTER: Judging by past experience I do not think that any useful purpose would be served by reopening this question.

Mr. HOGGE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware, as this is a new House of Commons, of the obvious inequalities and anomalies which compel Members who come either from Wales or from Scotland to incur so great railway expense as compared with those who come from London and the home counties?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman should give notice of that question.

NEAR EAST (NON-TURKISH REFUGEES).

Mr. NOEL BUXTON: 77.
asked the Prime Minister whether the departure of non-Turkish refugees from Constantinople has been impeded by the Turkish authorities; and what steps have been taken to secure to the non-Turkish population, both of Constantinople and of Asia Minor, liberty to emigrate?

Mr. McNEILL: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the second part, this matter is forming the subject of negotiations at Lausanne.

Mr. BUXTON: Will it be made a condition of peace that refugees shall be allowed to emigrate without hindrance?

Mr. McNEILL: I cannot say. All I can say is that my Noble Friend is making every effort to settle this question satisfactorily.

Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: (by Private Notice) asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affaire whether his attention has been called to the facts mentioned in the following telegram from Limassol, Cyprus:
Thousand refugees Anatolia arrived. Government allows only land British subjects, Armenians, Cypriots. Thousands Greeks remain small vessels suffering enormously under bad weather. Many dead. Country protested. Archbishop wired Lord Mayor, London, asking assistance;
and whether the Government will make arrangements for these refugees to be permitted to land on the island of Cyprus?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): In reply to a telegram urging the High Commissioner to receive as many of these refugee's as possible, Mr. Stevenson has telegraphed to the effect that he had already received or agreed to receive upwards of 10,500 refugees of various nationalities, a number equal to about one-thirtieth of the normal population of the island. He was continuing to receive any refugees who had relations in or connections with the island. Having regard to the available accommodation and resources of the island, the Secretary of State decided that he could not press him to do more than he is doing.

Mr. O'CONNOR: What is to become, then, of those other people who are compelled to remain in the boats, many of them dying from exposure and cold?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I am afraid that the material and resources in personnel of the island of Cyprus are at present being strained to the uttermost to receive the refugees who are arriving.

LAUSANNE CONFERENCE (BULGARIA AND ARMENIA).

Mr. NOEL BUXTON: 78 and 79.
asked the Prime Minister (1) whether, in order to give to Bulgaria the effective commercial outlet to the Ægean Sea promised by the Treaty of Neuilly, His Majesty's Government will urge on the Allies the need of establishing Bulgarian administration over the proposed corridor and over the port of Dedeagach;
(2) whether, in view of the pledge given by the Allies at the London Conference of March, 1921, to provide a territory for the Armenians of Turkey, His Majesty's Government will confer with the Powers, including Russia, at Lausanne with a view to obtaining an accession of territory to the Armenian Republic in return for cession of territory to Turkey on the northern borders of Mesopotamia?

The PRIME MINISTER: I regret that I can make no statement while negotiations which include these subjects are still proceeding at Lausanne.

HOUSE OF LORDS.

Sir R. NEWMAN: 81.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the state-
ment that the question of the reform of the Second Chamber is not likely to be brought up for discussion during the coming Session, he will state the intentions of the Government with regard to the admission of peeresses in their own right into the House of Lords?

The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think there would be any advantage in considering this subject at present.

EMPIRE ECONOMIC CONFERENCE.

Mr. LAMB: 82.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the subsidies now being paid by the British taxpayer having for their object the development of Imperial agricultural resources overseas and of the decision that no subsidies can be found for the purpose of developing the agricultural resources of Great Britain, he can state whether it is intended that the interests of British agriculture will be represented at the Empire Economic Conference with a view to securing that home food production shall not be further handicapped?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am not aware of any subsidies of the nature referred to. I can assure my hon. Friend that the interests of British agriculture will be fully borne in mind in connection with the proposed Imperial Economic Conference.

GREECE (CORRESPONDENCE).

MR. LLOYD GEORGE'S STATEMENT.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I would like to make a personal explanation, inasmuch as last week I put a question which east some doubt upon the circulation of these documents. I wish to say that, having heard the statements of my right hon. Friend, and having made some inquiry, I unreservedly accept the statement made by the Foreign Office that, in so far as I am concerned, the Papers were circulated. The circulation, as the House knows very well, and as Cabinet Ministers know very well, is either a limited one to the Departments particularly concerned, or it is a circulation to the whole of the Cabinet; but whether it was a limited one, or a circulation to the whole of the Cabinet, I have
no doubt at all that the document was circulated to me as the head of the Government. Therefore, I assume that I received it.
My recollection is that at the time of circulation I was ill, and that I saw no Papers. That is not the fault of the Foreign Office, and I am not putting it on that ground. Afterwards I went down to the country for about three weeks. That accounts for the fact that it has completely passed away from my memory. There is another reason which I think it is fair to Lord Curzon and myself I should state, having regard to the attention which has been attracted by this correspondence. Lord Curzon and I saw the late M. Gounaris on 12th January together. I then stated to him that there would be no peace unless the Greek forces retired from Smyrna. I told him of the memorandum which Lord Curzon was submitting to the Allies, and which involved that withdrawal. I said those were the terms of the British Government. I then urged him very strongly to place himself entirely in the hands of Lord Curzon, and he promised to do so. He was here in February, but I did not see him. He asked to see me. I told him the matter was in the hands of Lord Curzon.
The correspondence was with Lord Curzon, and whatever communication there may have been from me was a. communication made after consultation with the Foreign Office. I wish to make that quite clear in order to show that a statement had been made by the Foreign

Secretary and myself that the British view was that the Greek forces should be withdrawn from Smyrna.

The only other statement I should like to make is this. Neither my colleagues nor I are responsible for raising this question at the present moment. We certainly should not have raised it when the Foreign Secretary was away. It was raised by papers which are certainly not particularly friendly to me, and although they support my right hon. Friend, he certainly is not responsible in the least for the fact that they published this correspondence. But they published it with the suggestion that something happened between M. Gounaris and myself without the knowledge of the Government, that I kept it from my colleagues, and that I conducted certain negotiations. I felt I could not allow that to go on without making certain inquiries. I wish to make it perfectly clear to the House what actually transpired, and I have no doubt at all, so far as I am concerned, that the document was sent to me in the ordinary course.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Motion made, and Question put, "That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted at this day's Sitting from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 251; Noes, 120.

Division No. 27.]
AYES.
[3.55 p.m.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)
Craig, Capt. C. C. (Antrim, South)


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Bruton, Sir James
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton, East)
Buckingham, Sir H.
Crook, C. W. (East Ham, North)


Allen, Lieut.-Col. Sir William James
Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Curzon, Captain Viscount


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Davidson, J C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)


Apsley, Lord
Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.
Burney, Com. (Middx., Uxbridge)
Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)


Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence
Butcher, Sir John George
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Butt, Sir Alfred
Dawson, Sir Philip


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Button, H. S.
Dixon, C. H. (Rutland)


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Cadogan, Major Edward
Doyle, N. Grattan


Banks, Mitchell
Cautley, Henry Strother
Edmondson, Major A. J.


Barlow, Rt. Hon. Sir Montague
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Ednam, Viscount


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)


Becker, Harry
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm, W.)
Erskine-Boist, Captain C.


Bennett, Sir T. J. (Sevenoaks)
Churchman, Sir Arthur
Evans, Capt. H. Arthur (Leicester, E.)


Berry, Sir George
Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender
Evans, Ernest (Cardigan)


Betterton, Henry B.
Coates, Lt.-Col. Norman
Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Falcon, Captain Michael


Blundell, F. N.
Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Fermor-Hesketh, Major T.


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Colvin, Brig. General Richard Beale
Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.


Brass, Captain W.
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Flanagan, W. H.


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Cope, Major William
Ford, Patrick Johnston


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Cotts, Sir William Dingwall Mitchell
Foreman, Sir Henry


Brittain, Sir Harry
Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.
Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot


Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Lamb, J. O.
Reynolds, W. G. W.


Frece, Sir Waller de
Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R.
Rhodes, Lieut.-Col. J. P.


Fremantie, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)
Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)


Furness, G. J.
Lewis, Thomas A.
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hertford)


Ganzoni, Sir John
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. Sir S. (Ecclesall)


Gardiner, James
Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Robertson, J. O. (Islington. W.)


Gates, Percy
Lorimer, H. D.
Rogerson, Capt. J. E.


Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R.
Lowe, Sir Francis William
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd
Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)
Ruggles-Brise, Major E.


George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)
Lumley, L. R.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Goff, Sir R. Park
M'Connell, Thomas E.
Russell, William (Bolton)


Gray, Harold (Cambridge)
McCurdy, Rt. Hon. Charles A.
Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney


Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hackn'y, N.)
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Grigg, Sir Edward
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.


Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.
Sanderson, Sir Frank B.


Guthrie, Thomas Maule
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Sandon, Lord


Gwynne, Rupert S.
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
Shakespeare, G. H.


Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W.(LIv'p'I, W.D'by)
Margesson, H. D. R.
Sinclair, Sir A.


Halstead, Major D.
Martin, A. E. (Essex, Romford)
Skelton, A. N.


Hamilton, Sir George C, (Altrlncham)
Mercer, Colonel H.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furness)


Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)
Sparkes, H. W.


Harrison, F. C.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Steel, Major S. Strang


Harvey, Major S. E.
Molson, Major John Elsdale
Stewart, Gershorn (Wirral)


Hawke, John Anthony
Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.
Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.


Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South)
Morden, Col. W. Grant
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Henderson, Sir T. (Roxburgh)
Morrison, Hugh (Wilts, Salisbury)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Murchison, C. K.
Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)


Herbert, Col. Hon. A. (Yeovil)
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Herbert, S. (Scarborough)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Hewett, Sir J. P.
Newson, Sir Percy Wilson
Tubbs, S. W.


Hiley, Sir Ernest
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Turton, Edmund Russborough


Hinds, John
Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Wallace, Captain E.


Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Nield, Sir Herbert
Ward, Col- L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John
Waring, Major Walter


Hood, Sir Joseph
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington)


Hopkins, John W. W.
Paget, T. G.
Wells, S. R.


Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)
Parker, Owen (Kettering)
Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.


Houston, Sir Robert Patterson
Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry
White, Lt.-Col. G. D. (Southport)


Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike
Whitla, Sir William


Howard-Bury, Lieut-Col. C. K.
Pennefather, De Fonblanquc
Wilson, Col. M J. (Richmond)


Hudson, Capt. A.
Penny, Frederick George
Windsor, Viscount


Hume, G. H.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Winterton, Earl


Hurd, Percy A.
Perring, William George
Wise, Frederick


Hutchison, W. (Kelvingrove)
Philipson, H. H.
Wolmer, Viscount


Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Pilditch, Sir Philip
Wood, Rt. Hn. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Privett, F. J.
Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward


Jarrett, G. W. S.
Raeburn, Sir William H.
Yerburgh, R. D. T.


Jodrell, Sir Neville Paul
Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel
Young, Rt. Hon. E. H. (Norwich)


Johnson, Sir L. (Walthamstow, E.)
Rawson, Lieut.-Com. A. C.



Joynson-Hicks, Sir William
Held, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES—


King, Captain Henry Douglas
Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Colonel Gibbs and Major Barnston.


Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Remnant, Sir James



NOES.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Hardie, George D.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillibro')
Collison, Levl
Harris, Percy A.


Attlee, C. R.
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Darblshire, C. W.
Hayday, Arthur


Barnes, A.
Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)


Batey, Joseph
Duncan, C.
Hill, A.


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Dunnico, H.
Hirst, G. H.


Berkeley, Captain Reginald
Edmonds, G.
Hodge, Rt. Hon. John


Bonwick, A.
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Hogge, James Myles


Bowdler, W. A.
Entwistle, Major C. F.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)


Briant, Frank
Falconer, J.
Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)


Broad, F. A.
Foot, Isaac
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)


Brotherton, J.
Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East)


Buchanan, G.
Gray, Frank (Oxford)
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.


Buckle, J.
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Kirkwood, D.


Burgess, S.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George


Burnie, Major J. (Bootle)
Groves, T.
Lansbury, George


Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)
Grundy, T. W.
Leach, W.


Cairns, John
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Lee, F.


Chapple, W. A.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)
Linfield, F. C.


Charleton, H. C.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
McLaren, Andrew


Clarke, Sir E. C.
Hancock, John George
March, S.




Marshall, Sir Arthur H.
Richards, R.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, E.)
Riley, Ben
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Mathew, C. J.
Roberts, Frederick O, (W. Bromwich)
Thornton, M.


Maxton, James
Robinson, W. C. (York, Elland)
Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.


Middleton, G.
Rose, Frank H.
Westwood, J.


Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Royce, William Stapleton
Wheatley, J.


Mosley, Oswald
Saklatvala, S.
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)


Muir, John W.
Salter, Dr. A.
Wignall, James


Murnin, H.
Scrymgeour, E.
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western)
Shaw, Hon, Alex. (Kilmarnock)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Nichol, Robert
Shinwell, Emanuel
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


O'Connor, Thomas P.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Oliver, George Harold
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Wintringham, Margaret


Paling, W.
Simpson, J. Hope
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Phillipps, Vivian
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton;


Ponsonby, Arthur
Snowden, Philip



Potts, John S.
Spencer, H. H. (Bradford, S.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Pringle, W. M. R.
Stephen, Campbell
Mr. Lunn and Mr. Morgan Jones.

Orders of the Day — IMPORTATION OF ANIMALS BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Importation of Canadian store cattle.)

(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, Canadian store cattle may, if the conditions specified in this Section are fulfilled, be landed in Great Britain without being required to be dealt with and slaughtered in accordance with the provisions of Part I of the Third Schedule to the Diseases of Animals Act, 1894 (in this Act referred to as "the principal Act").

(2) The conditions to be fulfilled for the purposes of this Section are as follows:

(a) The cattle must before shipment have been marked in such manner as the Minister may prescribe, and must have been shipped from a port in the Dominion of Canada:
(b) The Minister must be satisfied—

(i) that the cattle were for a period of three days immediately before shipment kept separate from other animals, and were examined from time to time during that period by a duly authorised veterinary officer of the Dominion of Canada, and in particular were thoroughly so examined immediately before shipment, and that on such examination no animal examined was found to be affected with cattle plague, pleuro-pneumonia, or foot-and-mouth disease;
(ii) that the cattle were not at the time of shipment affected with mange or any other disease which is declared by the Minister to be a disease within the meaning of this provision;
(iii) that, if at any time within twenty-eight days before the shipment of the cattle the vessel in which the cattle are brought to Great Britain had had on board any animal which had been exported or carried coastwise from any port or place in any country other than Great Britain or the Dominion of Canada, or had entered or been within any such port or place, the vessel was before the shipment of the cattle effectively cleansed and disinfected to the satisfaction of the duly authorised representative of the Government of the Dominion of Canada;
(iv) that the cattle were during the voyage kept separate from other animals and daily examined by a duly authorised veterinary officer of the Dominion of Canada, and that on
2414
such examination no animal examined was found to be affected with cattle plague, pleuro-pneumonia, or foot-and-mouth disease;
(v) that the vessel did not during the voyage enter any port or place outside Great Britain:
(c) The cattle must be landed at a port and at a landing place approved by the Minister for the purposes of this Section.

(3) Cattle landed under this Section shall bo detained at the landing place at which they are landed and there isolated from all other animals for such period, commencing from the time at which the landing of the cattle is completed, as may be required for the thorough examination of the cattle by veterinary inspectors and the issue of licences for their movement, and no cattle shall be moved from the landing place unless and until the movement is authorised by a licence granted in accordance with the provisions of the Schedule to this Act.

(4) If on the examination of any cattle lauded under this Section the veterinary inspector suspects any animal of being affected with cattle plague, pleuro-pneumonia, or foot-and-mouth disease, he shall cause all the cattle then in the landing place to be detained therein until he has satisfied himself as to whether the suspected animal is or is not so affected, and for the purposes of the examination the inspector may cause the suspected animal to be slaughtered.

(5) If it is found on any such examination that any animal is affected with any such disease as aforesaid, the owner or person in charge of any cattle then in the landing place shall cau6" all those cattle as having been exposed to the infection of the disease to be slaughtered within such time as the veterinary inspector may fix, and in any such case none of the cattle shall be moved from the landing place unless in the opinion of the inspector it is necessary so to do for the purpose of slaughter and then only in accordance with such conditions, if any, as may be imposed by the licence authorising the movement.

(6) If the person whose duty it is under the last preceding Sub-section to cause any cattle to be slaughtered fails to cause the cattle to be slaughtered within the time fixed in that behalf, the Minister may, but without prejudice to the liability of that person to proceedings for an offence under the principal Act, cause the cattle to be slaughtered and to be disposed of in such manner as he thinks fit, and any sum received by the Minister in respect of the sale of the carcases of any cattle so slaughtered shall, after the deduction therefrom of the expenses of slaughter and disposal and the amount of any importation fees, be paid to the owner of the cattle.

(7) The Minister may by Order suspend the operation of this Section during any period during which he has reason to believe that cattle plague, pleuro-pneumonia, or
foot-and-mouth disease exists in the Dominion of Canada, and for such further period after any such disease has ceased so to exist as, in his opinion, is necessary for the purpose of avoiding the risk of the introduction of the disease into Great Britain.

(8) In this Act the expression "Canadian" in relation to any animal means "born and roared in the Dominion of Canada," and the expression "store cattle" means castrated male or splayed female bovine animals.

Mr. CAUTLEY: I beg to move, in Subsection (2, a), to leave out the word "marked" and to insert instead thereof the word "branded."
I do not desire to interfere with the smooth working of this Bill. The object of the Amendment is to secure that no injustice shall be done to home cattle without interfering with the importation of Canadian cattle. The Bill, as drawn, provides that one of the conditions under which they are to be imported is that the cattle before shipment must have been marked in such manner as the Minister may prescribe. The method of marking these cattle is left entirely to the discretion of the Minister. I desire that the Committee should settle the method of marking, and the Amendment is to leave out the word "marked," and to insert the word "branded." Branding is a permanent mark. It is done, as a rule, on the horn, and I want to secure that Canadian cattle brought into this country shall be known as Canadian cattle and sold as Canadian cattle. One of the objections raised in many agricultural districts, whether rightly or wrongly, was founded on the opinion that it was the intention to bring Canadian stores here, land them, put them out to pasture for a few weeks, and sell them as best English beef. It is to avoid anything of that sort that I bring forward this Amendment. If the cattle are branded, that cannot take place; to whatever market or whatever butcher they go, the mark of Canadian origin will be clear and will be recognised, if there be a permanent mark by branding. If, on the other hand, they are only marked by being clipped on the hair as is quite common when cattle are marked for temporary purposes, English cattle are likely to suffer, and Canadian cattle may be sold as best English beef.

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Sir Robert Sanders): I understand that
there is a strong feeling amongst some people against the practice of branding animals, and there is an equally effective method of marking by tags that is not objected to, so I do not think it is wise to limit the discretion of the Minister in this matter.

Mr. CAUTLEY: What is the objection to branding?

Sir R. SANDERS: I do not know, but I have heard complaints about it. All that this Sub-section does is to give the Minister discretion to see that the cattle are marked in such a way as he and his officers think best.

Colonel NICHOLSON: I cannot see the objection to having the cattle branded, and there is great objection to marking them by tags. There is no reason to suppose that marking by tags is permanent. Already a great many cattle are branded. Every breeder of a registered herd in the old days branded his cattle with his mark and with the number of the cattle, and there are at the present time a large number of cattle branded on their horns. There is no objection whatever to branding cattle, and, if the Canadian cattle were properly branded with the letter "C" or something of that kind, it would be a good way of tracing them throughout the country. It is very important that they should be properly marked. Unless they are properly marked, they may be sent on to a farm for six days and then sold, perhaps as English-bred cattle, which they are not. It is most important that they should be marked, so that any man going into the market can tell at once whether they are Canadian beasts or not. At the present time the Shorthorn Society of Great Britain insists upon every animal being marked with the owner's initials and the number of the cattle. Again, every owner of a flock of any important breed who registers that flock has to mark the sheep in some shape or form. At the present moment, if you happen to be a member of the Southdown Society, you have to have all your sheep marked according to the conditions laid down by the society, who send their markers round every year to mark the lambs. There would therefore be no difficulty whatever in having the Canadian cattle branded before they came into this country. It would be a great assistance
to the Board of Agriculture in tracing them, and I hope my right hon. Friend will reconsider the matter and do something to prevent the spread of disease in this country, or, at all events, to enable people to recognise whether a beast is Canadian or home bred.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: I am sorry that the hon. Member who spoke last has referred again to disease. It is no doubt desirable that we should have some mark of recognition of the cattle coming in, but I understand there are strong objections on the part of the Society of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals to branding, and there is also the objection that branding in any other part would injure the hide. There is, however, available a system of marking by a tag fastened to the ear in such a way that it cannot be detached.

Captain ELLIOT: Is it not the case that there would be much more pain involved in attaching a tag to the ear than in branding on the horn? I am not speaking in favour of either one or the other method, but branding the horn would not injure the animal.

Mr. HARDIE: What will the right hon. Gentleman do in the case of polled cattle?

Dr. CHAPPLE: Branding with an iron is a very cruel thing, although permanent and to be detected even after the beast is killed. Animals may also be marked with a chemical. What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by marking? Does it include branding? Does he mean branding with a hot iron or with chemicals?

Mr. LAMBERT: What method of marking does the right hon. Gentleman propose to adopt? Will the tags be removable or will they be permanent? Supposing a Canadian animal is brought down into the Bridge water Division, will people there be able to know that that animal came, from Canada?

Mr. SHORT: You can tell by his dialect?

Mr. LAMBERT: Perhaps the hon. Member is more acquainted with bovine dialect than I am. After all, it is in the discretion of the Minister. Will he now give us the assurance that any mark placed on these animals cannot be obliterated and will be irremovable?

Mr. GARDINER: I wonder if hon. Members are aware that some of the breeders of this country have met together and considered this question. Take the Shorthorn Society. Their regulations are clear and definite. It is a question of marking on the ear with indelible ink pr something of that kind, and if they have considered, after all their ramifications and inquiries, that that is the best possible method of doing it, I think we should leave the word as it is in the Bill.

Mr. PRETYMAN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will give a definite assurance that he will insist upon an indelible mark, as I take it that that is really the object of my hon. and learned Friend in moving the Amendment? The branding is obviously indelible; if on the horns I believe it is painless, and it is readily seen, and those are really the objects which have to be attained. It seems to me that branding would be the simple method which this House might impose permanently. I agree that, although it may be necessary, and often is, to leave discretion in the hands of a Minister, we do not want to do it when it is unnecessary, but I hope my right hon. Friend will give us some reason why in this case it is necessary to leave the discretion in his hands. We do not want to divide the Committee against him, or to show any unreasonable spirit in this matter whatever. We want indelible marking which is easily visible, and branding seems to fulfil those requirements.

Sir R. SANDERS: I think we all really want the same thing, and I quite realise the importance of having a mark which shall be indelible. The Canadians say that they have a method of tagging which is indelible, and by which you can always recognise their animals. I want to try that, and if that does not answer, then it will probably come to branding.

Captain ELLIOT: Will the right hon Gentleman be disposed to allow us simply to insert the word "indelibly"?

Sir F. BANBURY: I was going to suggest that that might be done. The Amendment is to leave out the word "marked"; if my right hon. Friend agrees that "marked" should be left out, we should have to insert certain words, and we might then insert "indelibly marked." Although I am prepared to
take the assurance of the Minister that he will see that the cattle are indelibly marked, we might have a new Minister in three or four years' time who would know nothing of what has been going on, and therefore it ought to he made clear in the Act itself.

Sir R. SANDERS: I am quite prepared to accept something of that sort.

The CHAIRMAN: The proper course would be to let the word "marked" stand part of the Clause, and to insert the word "indelibly."

Mr. CAUTLEY: If the word "marked" stands part, shall we not have got so far in the Bill that we cannot go back in order to insert the word "indelibly"?

The CHAIRMAN: The word "indelibly" could come after the word "marked."

Mr. PRINGLE: Would it not be better to have the Amendment withdrawn, and then to insert the word "indelibly" after the word "marked"?

The CHAIRMAN: That is exactly what I am suggesting.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. CAUTLEY: I beg to move, in Subsection (2, a), after the word "marked," to insert the word "indelibly."
I should like to add the words "and easily seen." [HON. MEMBERS: "NO!"]

Amendment agreed to.

The CHAIRMAN: The next Amendment on the Paper, in the name of the right hon. Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert)—[at the end of Subsection (2, a) to insert the words: "and any condition imposed on the importation of British cattle into Canada, shall be imposed on the importation of Canadian cattle into Great Britain"]— should come as a separate Sub-section, and the proper place for it, I think, will be at the end of Sub-section (2) of Clause 1.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (2, a), to insert a new paragraph—
(b) The vessel to be used for the voyage must have been inspected by the representa-
tive of the Minister in Great Britain, or by the duly authorised representative of the Government of the Dominion of Canada, and found to be suitable and properly fitted and equipped for the humane treatment of the cattle during the voyage, and the avoidance of unnecessary suffering by the cattle.
I do not want to delay the passage of this Bill by one minute, and I hope there will be no attempt to delay its passage, but I feel that either these words should be inserted or we should get some assurance from my right hon. Friend who is in charge of the Bill that the existing Regulations, which, I believe, do in theory cover this point, should be rigorously applied in the future. Everyone who knows anything about the subject is unanimous as to the great sufferings of the beasts on their way across the Atlantic, especially during the winter months and in bad weather, unless proper steps are taken to sling the animals and to look after them properly en voyage. It is perfectly possible to avoid this suffering to animals. We all know that in the ease of valuable pedigree beasts that are being shipped across to the Argentine or anywhere else for breeding purposes, very great care is taken to see that proper slings are provided and that these animals cannot suffer in any unnecessary way through bad weather. The same is true in regard to race horses. That shows it is possible to avoid this dreadful suffering, and I think the Regulations should be very strictly applied and that the right hon. Gentleman should give directions that the most minute care should be taken, especially at the beginning of this traffic, so as to establish precedents for the proper inspection of the vessels, and I think it would be a very good thing if they could be inspected on arrival in a few cases, and before the cattle are unshipped. I need not enlarge on this subject at all. The facts are familiar, I think, largely owing to the well meant efforts of certain humane societies at the time of the agitation last year for the removal of the embargo. I have always been in favour of the removal of the embargo, and I recognise that one of the most powerful weapons that could be used against its removal was the humanitarian question of the shipping of the beasts across the Atlantic. For these reasons, I hope my Amendment will be accepted.

Mr. HAYDAY: I support the view put forward by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Ken-worthy).

Sir R. SANDERS: It is already the law.

Mr. HAYDAY: It must have been very recent, then. I have journeyed on some of the cattle-carrying boats, and I assert that many of those boats are not suitable or fitted to carry deck cargo. The sheds are in the main temporary, and the first rough weather you run into I have seen the whole of these sheds broken up and cattle drifting from one side of the boat to the other, and after you come through that rough weather, I have seen cattle with broken legs and horns torn off, which could not be destroyed on board in consequence of insurance conditions, but they were strung up as soon as ever they reached dock and some insurance agent has been there to witness their slaughter. If the Regulations are sufficiently strong to cover this sort of case, I have nothing mores to say, but I agree with the hon. and gallant Member that now that we are recommencing what is likely to be a regular traffic, I hope we shall secure, as far as possible, such conditions as will secure humane treatment for these cattle. When men on a night watch are passing through the alleyways, particularly if the boat is carrying a deck cargo of this live cattle, walking through a narrow passage, with the swaying of the boat, many a man going on duty has often found himself more or less injured in consequence of the narrow and confined conditions in order1 to get a large number of head of cattle on the deck, and when one has witnessed even a chief mate or a skipper, with revolver in hand, sending the cattlemen in between the beasts in order to lash them to the rail for fear of too much weight jumping on one side and endangering the ship, it seems to me that that is rather a state of affairs that ought not to be permitted now that this traffic is likely to be recommenced. I can assure hon. Members, as an eye-witness, that I have seen these things.

Sir R. SANDERS: From Canada?

Mr. HAYDAY: I do not know about the Canadian route. I was on the American route, and I have been on vessels on the Canada route, the old
National line, common amongst seamen in that age as being in the category of "coffin" ships, but used mainly for the purpose of cattle carrying, and distinctly unsuitable. I hope some such inspection as is asked in this Amendment will not only be forthcoming, but rigidly enforced in the interests of the safety of the ship and the humane treatment of the cattle, and in order to ensure that the traffic shall be recommenced under better conditions than existed in the past.

Mr. FOOT: The matter was discussed rather slightly, we thought, in the last Parliament, when the Resolution came before the House for consideration. I, on that occasion, voted for the removal of the embargo, although I was influenced, as most of us were, I think, by the arguments that were put before us by the Royal Humane Society. We were then given a very definite assurance by the then Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Churchill), and we were promised on that occasion, very definitely, that there would be some safeguards against any continuance of some of the old evils that were almost too sickening to read about. I would like to remind the Committee of that promise, given in the course of a speech made by the then Secretary of State for the Colonies, as follows:
We have heard arguments about cruelty to animals on board ships. Surely, we need not argue about that. It must be a matter of regulation, and of strong regulation. There will be no dispute with Canada about that. There will be no dispute with any part of the British Empire about that. By all means, Regulations must be made to protect these beasts from being ill-treated or landed in a damaged and broken condition. These Regulations will add to the existing natural protection of distance, both by sea and land."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 24th July, 1922; cols. 167–168, Vol. 157.]
It was on the strength of that promise and that assurance that I cast my vote as I did. Although I am concerned for a cheap meat supply in this country, I would not vote for it if it had to be obtained as a result of the continuance of cruelties that were a reproach to this country. I hope it will not be suggested that, because cruelty exists now in the bringing of animals from Ireland, therefore we ought to tolerate similar conditions as far as America is concerned. I am not responsible for the earlier conditions, but our vote is being asked
for now, and I certainly should not support the further stages of the Bill unless I could have same assurance that the evils of the earlier conditions shall be safeguarded against for the future.

Sir R. SANDERS: I quite agree with every word that has been said about taking every precaution to prevent unnecessary suffering, but we have powers already. They are conferred on us by the Act of 1894, which lays it down that the Minister has power to make Orders for prohibiting the conveyance of animals by any specified vessel to or from any port in Great Britain, for such time as the Board may consider expedient, for insuring for animals carried by sea a proper supply of food and water and proper ventilation during the voyage, and for protecting animals from unnecessary suffering during the passage; and an Order has been made under these powers which is able to contain all the requirements necessary to secure humane transport of these animals, although, of course, it is possible from time to time that weather conditions may cause suffering. There is already sufficient trade in cattle from Canada to enable the Ministry's officers to secure information as to the operation of the Orders, and they are satisfied that the Orders are being complied with. Apart from any humane considerations, this may reasonably be expected to be the case, because, with indifferent conditions of transport, serious loss would be incurred by the owners of the animals, and possibly the charterers of the vessel. The powers of the Ministry are, therefore, quite adequate to deal with this case, and I certainly will do everything in my power to see that they are enforced.

Sir F. BANBURY: May I ask the learned Attorney-General whether the words "to or from any port in Great Britain" means coastwise traffic, or from ports in other parts of the world?

Mr. CAUTLEY: Before the right hon. and learned Gentleman answers that, may I ask whether it applies to foreign ships?

Sir F. BANBURY: That is the point.

Sir R. SANDERS: The Canadians enforce similar provisions for the protection
of animals in transport, and the two Governments are acting in concert in this matter.

Sir W. DAVISON: Those interested in this matter are very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his sympathetic reply, and, while we recognise that the Order which has been made to a very large extent meets this matter, would it not be very much better, considering the great anxiety which is felt in all parts of the House, as well as throughout the country, if the contents of the Order were actually put in this Bill, so that there could be no doubt about it whatever?

Sir R. SANDERS: It is already in another Act.

Sir W. DAVISON: Would it not be a good thing, as this is a Bill specially dealing with the importation of animals from Canada, to have it put in in black and white, in order to remove the anxiety of a large number of people throughout the country as well as of Members in all parts of the House?

Sir F. BANBURY: My question was, What does "to or from any port in Great Britain" mean? Does it mean from ports in other parts of the world, or does it mean coastwise traffic i The answer of the right hon. Gentleman is that he and the Canadian Government are agreed on this subject, and in Canada they have a law which deals with it. But, under this Bill, we are going to allow the importation of cattle from all parts of the world. Certainly under Clause 4 they can come in from all parts of the world.

Captain ERNEST EVANS: There is another consideration to which I should like to draw the attention of the Minister. This Clause lays down conditions under which the embargo is to be removed, and if any farmer in Canada is dissatisfied, he will turn to this Clause to find out what are the conditions under which he is entitled to send his store cattle to Great Britain. If he does not see anything in this Clause dealing with humane treatment in shipment, he will turn round and say, "Where is the authority to do that?" It is no use pointing out to him the Act of 1894. He will look to this as his charter, and, as there seems no reason for not accepting the Amendment, I would press the right hon. Gentleman to agree to it.

Mr. GWYNNE: I gather from the answer of the right hon. Gentleman that the Act of 1894 says the Minister "may." What we want to say is "shall." It is only a Regulation under the Act which the right hon. Gentleman quoted, and, moreover, many of us are satisfied that, since that Act was passed, acts of cruelty have taken place, and, therefore, the Board did not exercise their rights. We know, for instance, in the case of pit ponies and horse traffic, that the Minister has power, but it was not exercised until pressure was brought to bear in this House, and I hope that we shall insist that the Minister "shall" take action.

Mr. BROAD: I certainly hope the Amendment will be accepted by the Minister in charge. He was very sympathetic, from the humanitarian point of view, but he seemed to rely on the self-interest of those concerned in the traffic to see that they did not lose by not making proper provisions. The experience of the past proved that there was more profit to be made by putting great superstructures on the boats and by crowding the animals together. I do not think it is sufficient to say that the Minister may act when his attention is drawn to these things. I think the Committee should insist on it being inserted in the Act, and that machinery of inspection shall be provided so that we can point to the Minister's responsibility if it be not properly carried out. We know that the conditions for carrying fattened cattle or breeding stock are necessarily more humane, in order to safeguard the animals, as these fat cattle have to be killed on landing and must, therefore, be in something like condition to be killed. But when creatures are brought over here as store cattle to make it profitable, I am afraid, they will be crowded on decks in superstructures, and packed in such a way as to make it impossible for them to come over here without great suffering unless the weather be very calm. We have to see that this suffering is prevented as far as possible by Regulations laid down in the Bill. No doubt, with the revival of this traffic, the conditions may be fairly satisfactory, but we know that as time goes on, the people concerned in the traffic get more and more callous, and hulls will be retained in service when they ought to be destroyed.
The conditions are unsafe, are brutalising for the men, besides being horrible for the animals. I hope, therefore, every precaution will be taken to see that there is a continuity of inspection, and that there is not a degeneration to the state of things which existed before 1914. I do not think, if the traffic were revived in the same condition as it was before 1914, the public would tolerate it very long. I hope we shall not again be gradually used to see these tortures inflicted on the animals, and that, if this traffic is to be reinstated, it shall be reinstated with every safeguard for the creatures, no matter if it means some little less profit to those concerned in the trade.

Mr. PRETYMAN: Perhaps the learned Attorney-General will answer a question to settle the difficulty, because I think we are all agreed that the precautions here indicated are desirable. The answer of the Minister is that these are already in operation under the Act of 1914, but they are only in operation there by a power of regulation. Would the learned Attorney-General tell us whether the acceptance of this Amendment would in any way conflict with the powers which are already in existence, or create any legislative confusion? If it would not, there cannot be any possible objection to inserting these words. There may be some objection, of course, but I cannot see it. Is it really a legal question? It is not a question of right or wrong, because we are all agreed on the same thing. But we do not want to create confusion in the law, and if the Attorney-General tells us that, from the legal and constructive point of view of legislation, there is any objection to this Amendment, then, of course, I shall feel it my duty to support the Government in resisting it, hoping that they will bring in something better on Report. If, however, he says there is no legal objection, I do not see why we should not accept the Amendment.

Dr. CHAPPLE: I think this Amendment deserves our support, and ought to go into the Bill. I have seen cattle conveyed overseas. One of the greatest dangers is defective structure. In the Act of 1894, and in the Regulations arising therefrom, there is no provision for seeing that the ship is equipped and fitted in such a way as to bear the strain of rough weather. But the greatest cruelty and the greatest damage I have ever seen at sea have been due to the equipment of
the ship and the structure between the stalls giving way, so that all the cattle are thrown together. Once there is a break in the compartments, through a storm, the weight of two or three cattle breaks the rest, and nearly all the damage is due to defective structure. The Act of 1894 and the Regulations refer to humane treatment with regard to feeding, water and conditions of that kind. The Amendment here specially sets out that the ships must "be suitable and properly fitted and equipped." This is a stronger Amendment than the Act of 1894 or the Regulations. I see no objection to this going in. I see a very great advantage indeed, and I think my hon. and gallant Friend ought to press it upon the Committee.

Mr. MATHEW: What power is there at present to keep out cattle on an ill-equipped ship? I cannot find any under the Regulations. Assuming a ship from Canada arrives in this condition, what power is there to prevent landing at present?

Mr. FALCONER: Before the learned Attorney-General replies, may I say that I see no objection to the Amendment so far as Canadian cattle are concerned? The only objection I can see is that it will give a direction to the Minister which he will not only have to apply to Canadian cattle, hut to all cattle. If the Attorney-General said it would be so drafted as to limit it to Canadian cattle—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]—it seems to me that if you are going to deal with cattle from Ireland and cattle from Canada, it is desirable that you should entrust the Minister of Agriculture with power to make Regulations which are suitable for each, instead of laying down absolutely what he has got to do, and to treat the Canadian and Irish cattle in the same way. One class of ships may be suitable for bringing them over the Channel and another for bringing them from Canada.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Douglas Hogg): I will try to answer the questions that have been put. First, in reply to the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury), there is no doubt at all that the power given by Subjections (23), (24) and (25) of Section 22 of the Diseases
of Animals Act does apply to vessels whether coastwise vessels or vessels coming from a foreign port. The words are quite wide enough to cover vessels coming from any port, and, in fact, the Order dated, I think, 1912, does not apply only to coastwise traffic.

Sir F. BANBURY: The first words of the Section are, "The Board of Agriculture may make such orders," so that it is not imperative that they shall, but it is entirely optional upon them.

Sir D. HOGG: That is quite right. If my right hon. Friend had waited a minute or two, I was coming to that next, but I have to deal with these things one by one. The next point I want to answer was that raised by an hon. Member opposite, who said that anybody looking at this Bill would regard it as his charter, and would not look any further. He would find himself in great difficulties if he did, because the Bill itself says:
This Act ma5T be cited as the Importation of Animals Act, 1922, and the Diseases of Animals Acts, 1894 to 1914, and this Act may be cited together as the Diseases of Animals Acts, 1894 to 1922
I was asked whether or not there was any legislative difficulty in putting into this Bill a Clause which renders obligatory what is in the power of the Ministry to do under the Act of 1894. Quite frankly, I do not think that I can say that there is any such difficulty. We have in the Act of 1894 a provision that the Board "may" make regulations, and regulations have been made. I cannot say, and I cannot tell the Committee, that there is any reason why, if the Committee sees fit, in order to be en the safe side we should not make mandatory by this Bill what is possible under the old Act. Therefore, if I might venture to suggest it to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, we might, I think, accept this Amendment. The answer to the last point which has just been raised is that the Section in which the Amendment is inserted is a Section dealing with Canadian store cattle. There is power later in the Bill to deal with animals coming from other places, Clause 4 provides that:
The Minister may, notwithstanding anything in the principal Act, by Order authorise animals from an}- British Dominion other than the Dominion of Canada to be landed in Great Britain without being subject to the provisions of Part I of the Third
Schedule to the principal Act, if the animals are landed in accordance with such conditions, to be prescribed in the Order and not being less stringent than those applicable in the case of Canadian animals, as may, in the opinion of the Minister, be necessary or expedient for preventing the introduction of disease into Great Britain.
If, therefore, this Amendment be passed, I think it would be quite possible that it would become obligatory on the Minister allowing cattle in from Australia or South Africa to make analogous provisions in respect to cattle from those countries corresponding to that which obtains in this Amendment.

Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: What about the case of Ireland?

Sir D. HOGG: This relates to Canada. I do not think it mentions Ireland. I do not think, speaking without having looked very carefully, that Clause 1 in any way affects animals coming from Ireland. It may be that some qualification might be necessary to include Ireland if the Committee thought desirable.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: It was Clause 4 of the Bill to which I was referring. May I ask whether the conditions referred to attach to the Irish Free State?

Amendment agreed to.

Sir F. BANBURY: I beg leave to move, in Sub-section (2), to leave out the words "(b) The Minister must be satisfied."

The CHAIRMAN: I would point out to the right hon. Baronet that if this Amendment be carried, some consequential Amendments will be necessary.

Sir F. BANBURY: Yes, I appreciate that point, Mr. Hope. The point that I desire to make here is that the Minister would seem in this case to be taking away the duty of either the local authority or the port authority, or it might be the court of law. The position might arise if these words were left in that the local authority might say they were satisfied the regulations had been observed, and they might bring an action for infringement of the Act of 1894. The Minister might say to the local authority that expressed themselves satisfied that he was satisfied they were wrong. Besides, it is not for the new custom to continue which is that the Minister usurps the power of the courts of law by saying whether or
not the Act, in his opinion, is or is not being carried out. I am quite sure if the Committee see the point I am putting, they will see this is a practical policy. They will accept my Amendment, and allow these words to go out, subject, of course, to any observations that may be made by the learned Attorney-General.

Sir D. HOGG: If my right hon. Friend looks into it a little further, I think he will be satisfied that the Bill is stronger as it stands than it would be with the addition of his proposed Amendment. For this reason: if the Amendment were carried, the result would be that there would be an offence under this Act if, in fact, the cattle were not for three days before shipment kept separate from the other animals. Anyone who has had experience of the Courts of Law knows the difficulty there would be to prove the negative. In this case it would probably be an expensive and a difficult thing to prove. The effect of this provision is that it is not necessary to prove that they were not kept separate on the other side, but an offence is committed, unless the Minister is satisfied to the contrary. Therefore you have a much more stringent provision and a much easier method of convicting anybody who attempts to evade the provisions of this Bill. The object of the provision is simplicity and the saving of expense. Suppose anyone attempts to evade the provision, we shall be able to say it does not matter whether you have kept these animals separate. You have not satisfied us that you have done so, and unless you have satisfied us on that, and that you have complied with these conditions, you have committed an offence.

Mr. GWYNNE: How is the Minister of Agriculture going to impose these Regulations?

Sir D. HOGG: Unless the Regulations are carried out, then the animal comes within the Act of 1894, and has to be slaughtered immediately on arrival.

Sir F. BANBURY: To a certain extent the right hon. and learned Gentleman has satisfied my objections, but he has not really dealt with my chief objection, namely, that it is not right in this matter for any Minister to usurp the functions of the Courts of Law. But the right hon. learned Gentleman has shown that under certain circumstances it would be very
difficult to prove in a Court of Law whether or not these three days have been observed. Under the circumstances I am inclined to think, seeing there is always an exception to a rule, that possibly this will be one in which the Minister may or may not usurp the functions of the Court of Law. Therefore I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Mr. GWYNNE: How can the Minister tell when this offence has been committed?

The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid we cannot go into that point at the moment.

Mr. GWYNNE: Perhaps I may ask the Attorney-General just to explain. I only want to know how this thing is to be carried out. Is the only way of enforcing the penalty for the animal to be slaughtered on arrival? Will the Minister have the facts at Whitehall? How can the matter be known until after the animals have landed?

Mr. PRETYMAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any indication as to the kind of machinery that will be in force to see that this Regulation is carried out?

Sir D. HOGG: I will answer the first question and leave my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture to answer the second question. In reply to the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gwynne), as the law now stands, no animal may be imported from Canada except for slaughter. This Bill says that if certain conditions are fulfilled then the animals need not be slaughtered, but may be scattered all over England and Scotland. Before the animals can be moved for the market or anywhere else, the owner or the importer must satisfy the local authorities that these conditions have been fulfilled, and unless they have been so fulfilled the animal remains under the Act of 1894.

Mr. GWYNNE: Can we have some information as to the certificate?

Sir R. SANDERS: The details of the administrative arrangements have not yet been settled, but it seems clear that in every case the Minister will have to acquire a certificate from a responsible officer of the Dominion that the prescribed examination in Canada has been carried out, that the cattle were not found on such examination to be affected with
mange or other disease referred to in the Bill, and where the Bill requires cleansing and disinfection of the vessel, that this has been done. It will also be necessary to have a declaration by the master of the vessel, or some other suitable person, that the animals were kept separate and examined during the voyage, and that the vessel did not, during the voyage, enter any port or place outside Great Britain. I may add that it is part of the arrangement with the Canadian Government that the British Government shall maintain a small inspectorate in Canada to supervise the arrangements made by the Canadian Government to secure the proper observance, in Canada, of the conditions imposed by this Clause.

Mr. PRETYMAN: That seems quite satisfactory, provided it is understood that these certificates will be in the hands of the Minister before the animals are landed.

Amendment negatived.

Major Sir KEITH FRASER: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2, b, i), after the word "three," to insert the word "clear."
5.0 P.M.
I wish to point out to the right hon. Gentleman in charge of this Bill that there is no quarantine in this country. Apparently, there is an impression that when the cattle land here they are in quarantine, but there is no quarantine on this side; in fact, there is no detention at all at the port of landing. As far as I can understand these proposals, the cattle may not be kept in an enclosure for more than 72 hours. After that where are they to be taken, if not sold, except to slaughter? The method suggested by this Bill seems to me the best way of distributing disease, and, therefore, I think it is all important that there should be three clear days' detention immediately before shipment on the Canadian side.

Mr. ALEXANDER: I hope this Amendment will not be accepted, because it will only make it more difficult to work the proposals contained in the Bill. The Mover of this Amendment, apparently, desires to arrange that the period of detention on the other side should be five days and not three. I think the Minister who has to carry out this Measure has plenty of discretion and power to see that the three days' provision is observed.

Sir F. BANBURY: In reply to the hon. Member who has just spoken, I cannot see how putting in the word "clear" to make it read "three clear days" can possibly make it into five days. At any rate, that is not the kind of arithmetic to which I have been accustomed. I believe the intention of the Government is to have three clear days, and if that is so why not put it in the Bill?

Sir R. SANDERS: It is already five days in the Act of 1894. What is now proposed is really three clear days.

Captain ELLIOT: Would it not be the simplest way to say 72 hours? I understand the right hon. Gentleman is willing to consider this matter on Report. We ought to have this made as clear as we can get it. I would point out that this is a Regulation enforcing something on the Canadians and not on this side, and it is a matter which ought to be made perfectly clear.

Sir R. SANDERS: You are really proposing to put in something less than the Canadians have already agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. WHEATLEY: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2, b, i), after the word "with" ["with cattle plague"], to insert the word "tuberculosis."
My object is to obtain some measure of protection for the unfortunate people who get disease through this industry. I do not think I am asking too much when I appeal to hon. Members on both sides of the House to give the same consideration to the poor children as they are claiming for the cattle. It would be difficult to exaggerate the extent to which tuberculosis already exists amongst the herds in this country, and if we are to import more tuberculosis the position in this country will become almost hopeless. Anyone who has had much experience in the work of local authorities recognises how much havoc is being played amongst the health of the people by the consumption of diseased meat and impure milk, and an additional burden is being placed on the ratepayers and taxpayers of this country in consequence. At the present time it is the practice of local authorities when an animal is found to be suffering from tuberculosis merely to excise the diseased part, and allow the remainder of the carcase to be offered
for sale to the general public That diseased part is not usually offered for sale in the west end district of the city, and I have no doubt if it were proposed to have it used in the restaurant at the House of Commons I should have no difficulty in getting a majority against this proposal.
Nevertheless, it is sold in the poor districts of the city among the class of people who have the very lowest power of resistance to disease. There is no label attached to it, nor anything to warn the purchaser of the risk incurred in consuming it, and in this way tuberculosis is spread more particularly among the residents of our large industrial districts. The result is that, apart from the children who are killed outright, we have in every one of these large areas hundreds of children who are permanently incapacitated by this form of disease, and there are hundreds suffering from glandular, spinal and other forms of tuberculosis. In the city from which I come we have had to spend quite recently an enormous sum of money in providing facilities for the treatment of this disease. We had to erect one hospital with accommodation for 440 beds at a cost of £250,000. A large number of those beds are occupied by children with diseases which have their source in bovine tuberculosis. We are now adding another hospital at a cost of £300,000 to meet the requirements of the city, and we are not sure that even then we shall have done all that is necessary.
I have had various opportunities of going through these hospitals and examining the children there, and I say unhesitatingly that I regard this disease as constituting one of the most drastic tragedies in working-class life. For these reasons I ask the right hon. Gentleman to do something to protect these unfortunate people. It would be a great improvement in agriculture if you could adopt an improved method of supplying pure food to the British people. I know that this is not an opportune moment to submit a proposal of this kind, but I think any moment is opportune if you regard legislation as having for its object the health of the British people, and I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to take this opportunity of striking a blow at the source of one of the nation's devastating diseases.

Sir R. SANDERS: I agree with what the hon. Member has just said as to the great scourge that tuberculosis is to this country, but I am advised that you cannot get tuberculosis by eating cooked meat. The effect of this Amendment would be to require all store cattle to be examined before shipment as to whether they had tuberculosis or not, That would mean that all the animals would have to be held up in Canada for a sufficient period to enable the test to be made, and this would make it difficult, if not impossible, for Canadian cattle to be profitably exported to Great Britain. My technical advisers do not consider that this is a condition which can reasonably be imposed. It is, no doubt, true that tuberculous animals can communicate this disease, but the risk of this in the case of store cattle, which are only kept for a short period before slaughter, is not considerable. What is more, this Amendment is inconsistent with the bargain that was made with the Canadian Minister, and I am afraid I cannot accept it.

Mr. LAMBERT: The speech of the Minister of Agriculture is the strongest argument against this Bill being passed, because he says that tuberculosis may come in with these store animals. No man in his senses wants to import animals suffering from tuberculosis, because it is a great scourge in this country, and yet here we are absolutely taking no precautions whatsoever against the introduction of tuberculosis in store cattle. I cannot understand that the Ministry of Agriculture can have made such a bargain with the Canadian authorities, and the Ministry must certainly have known that tuberculosis can come in, and it is our business to prevent it coming in. For these reasons, I ask my right hon. Friend to reconsider this proposal, and if he cannot give us any assurance, I think we ought to divide against it. My right hon. Friend, I agree, may not have reason on his side, although he may have a majority, but he cannot compel us to admit in this country animals suffering from tuberculosis. My right hon. Friend says that the disease cannot be conveyed to human beings by cooked meat, but the fact remains that it is conveyed to human beings, either in milk or in some other way, and we want to keep it out of the country as far as is possible. Therefore,
I think my right hon. Friend should make Regulations under this Act whereby cattle suffering from tuberculosis shall not be admitted into this country.

Captain ELLIOT: I think the Minister should give further consideration to the suggestion of the hon. Member who moved this Amendment (Mr. Wheatley). It may be quite true there is no question of conveying infection by milk in this case, but it is a question of conveying the disease in the food of the people. Undoubtedly a point of difficulty arises, inasmuch as any animal which has once suffered from tuberculosis may not re-act to the tuberculin test, and therefore the diagnosis may be a matter of difficulty, but that is no reason why we should abdicate any attempt to control the importation of tuberculosis into this country. It would give a very unfortunate air to the agitation which has been going on for the importation of Canadian store cattle into this country if it were found that it might be possible to import cattle suffering from tuberculosis into this country. In many countries there are regulations in force about the selling of meat from animals condemned for tuberculosis. We have practically stamped out the disease from the herds in this country, and if we once put it into an Act of Parliament that you cannot make any stand against diseased animals coming here from overseas, it will hamper our breeders very much in the future. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider his decision.

Dr. CHAPPLE: I think the note of alarm which has been sounded by the hon. Member for Shettlestone (Mr. Wheatley) is really not justified. He referred to the case of tuberculous children in hospital and on the strength of it warned us against allowing the introduction of these store cattle in this country without being previously examined for tuberculosis. But nearly all the tuberculosis in children is admitted to have been caused by the consumption of raw milk and not by the consumption of cooked meat. We are now dealing with conked meat as an article of diet. The Clause, it will seen, refers to acute epidemic diseases and not to a chronic disease like tuberculosis. The epidemic diseases are highly infectious, including pleuro-pneumonia, foot-and-mouth disease and cattle plague, but tuberculosis is a chronic disease lasting
frequently for many years, and if the Minister is going to insert the suggested words he ought certainly to add the word "obvious" before tuberculosis in order to obviate the necessity for applying the tuberculin test. You cannot thoroughly examine an ox for tuberculosis without the tuberculin test, and if you are going to apply that test to every store beast before it is exported from Canada you will practically nullify the Act altogether. It is very easy for a veterinary surgeon to examine for evidence of acute diseases, but you cannot thoroughly test an ox for a chronic disease like tuberculosis without the tuberculin test, which is costly, tedious and protracted. The danger which my hon. Friend fears is really negligible, and the introduction of the words he suggests would not give us the security which he thinks. Every veterinary surgeon, of course, can look for the external manifestations of tuberculosis, and no breeder would export animals with obvious tuberculous symptoms. I hope the Minister will resist the Amendment, or, if he accepts it, will insist on the introduction of the word "obvious."

Major MOLSON: I hope the Minister will oppose this Amendment. I think it is a very great pity to carry these proposals to such an extreme as would interfere in a quite unpractical and useless manner with the pledges which have been given. Clause 1, Sub-section (8) says the expression "store cattle" means castrated male or spayed female bovine animals, and I think that that does away with the fears expressed by my hon. Friend. The sanitary inspector is quite able to detect tuberculosis in meat, while as to the question of milk that does not come within the purview of this Bill.

Mr. R. MURRAY: I desire to support the Amendment put forward by the hon. Member for Shettlestone (Mr. Wheatley). The only objections to it so far advanced do not seem to be of any force at all. It has been suggested that it would be sufficient to provide for the exclusion of cattle obviously suffering from tuberculosis, but the point in this case is this: we want to exclude cattle suffering from plague and other diseases of a kind which involve, on the face of them, considerable monetary loss to breeders and dealers, but the important thing so far as the public is concerned is that human life
may be affected by bringing over to this country cattle suffering from tuberculosis. It has been suggested by the Minister in charge of the Bill that if we pass this Amendment it will mean considerable delay on the other side until the cattle have been tested. I think if these words are put into the Bill it would follow that those who breed cattle for the purpose of sending them to this country will take care that the animals have passed the tuberculin test before they export them. It has been suggested, and it seems a deplorable thing for intelligent people to say, that there is a doubt whether tuberculosis can be transmitted in the form of cooked food. The answer to that is that there is not a Member of this House who would venture to eat cooked food which he knew had come from an animal subject to tuberculosis, and what we are not prepared to accept for ourselves we have no right to put on other people. I agree it will be useful for this country to have another source of meat supply, but I do not think it would be an advantage if that supply was liable to increase the amount of infectious disease in this country, and therefore, whatever may be the result, I suggest it is essential, if we are to stamp out that tuberculosis which has affected the world so long, we should take every step possible to kill it at its source. For that reason I support the Amendment.

Mr. LAMB: I do not think there is much direct danger to the public through eating meat which is properly cooked, but it may be if there is no direct danger that there is a great indirect danger from animals coming into this country infected with tuberculosis. It may not affect the population, but it may affect the herds of this country, and thus create a further danger to our milk supply. Seeing that we are making every effort to eradicate disease in this country, I do not think we ought to allow its free entry in this case.

Mr. GARDINER: I think we are indebted to the hon. Member for Shettlestone (Mr. Wheatley) for having introduced this subject, although, in my judgment, this is neither the time nor the place for dealing with such a serious disease as tuberculosis. We have to think very seriously about the condition of our own cattle, and there is no doubt at all that something in this direction will have to be passed. We are, of
course, making efforts to get rid of the disease and we know that no pure bred animal is accepted in the Argentine or in other countries unless it has passed the tuberculin test. But what becomes of the animals which fail to pass that test? Do they not go into our herds and 6pread tuberculosis throughout the length and breadth of the country. I repeat, I do not think this is the time or place for dealing with this question. There have been no cattle ever imported into this country that have been so free from tuberculosis as the Canadian cattle. That is the unanimous evidence of men who inspect these animals, and it is evidence which has been given before Royal Commissions and elsewhere. Canadian cattle, in fact, are more free from tuberculosis than any other cattle in the world.

Mr. TURTON: I cannot agree with the somewhat strained argument of the hon. Member who has just spoken (Mr. Gardiner) that, because cattle which have not passed a tuberculin test are not accepted in other countries, therefore, we, in this country, should receive them.

Mr. GARDINER: No. I simply suggested this was not the time or place for dealing with this matter. I quite agree it will have to be dealt with.

Mr. TURTON: And we intend to make use of the power we have got on this occasion to deal with it. Every animal that I export must pass the tuberculin test. Exactly the same thing should apply to all animals that come from Canada into this country, and, no matter what the result may be, I am content to support my hon. Friend opposite in regard to his Amendment.

Mr. HASTINGS: The only objection to this Amendment that I have heard so far is that a very prolonged examination will be required. I think my right hon. Friend who said that had not clearly in mind the words of the Sub-section, which provides that the cattle, for a period of three days, must be kept separate, and must be examined from time to time during that period by a duly authorised veterinary officer, and that the Minister must be satisfied that on such examination none of the diseases referred to has been discovered. There is no suggestion in this Amendment, as I understand it, that there should be any prolonged examina-
tion, or any extension of the period during which the animals are to be kept under supervision; and, provided that in fact, at the conclusion of the period, no such disease is discovered, then the animals are entitled to be exported. The Amendment does not suggest that they are not to be exported unless they can be found to be free from tuberculosis; the only suggestion that my hon. Friend puts forward is that during the same period they should be examined and it should be necessary to give a certificate that no tuberculosis was discovered. I suggest to the Committee that it is a perfectly proper Amendment.

Mr. BRUFORD: I take exception to what has just been said by the hon. Member for Kinross (Mr. Gardiner), namely, that animals suffering from tuberculosis are spreading the disease in our herds because we cannot export them. Nothing of the kind.

Mr. CAUTLEY: That is only in Scotland.

Mr. BRUFORD: We are most careful to test our animals, and we could not sell a bull at anything like a good price unless it passed the test. I should also like to point out to the Minister of Agriculture that this test can be applied during the three days' quarantine. I think it is just three days that the tuberculin test takes. I strongly support the suggestion that we should not import any disease into this country.

Mr. H. SIMPSON: With regard to what was said just now by the hon. Member for Dumfries (Dr. Chapple) about the tuberculin test, it would be perfectly easy to complete that test in the three days before the animals are put on board ship. I believe the test can be completed in 18 hours. Canada, having demanded the withdrawal of the embargo on the ground of the healthiness of her cattle, and in order that the stigma may be removed from Canadian cattle, I think it is most extraordinary that any objection should be taken to any such examination.

Mr. PRETYMAN: I think that the view of the Committee in regard to this Amendment will depend largely upon what the examination really means. There are two kinds of examination for tuberculosis. One is the tuberculin test which, speaking as a layman, I think,
from any experience I have had, is a somewhat doubtful test. The whole study of tuberculosis is, apparently, still very obscure, and it is quite possible that an animal tested with tuberculin may react, and then three months afterwards may not react; or the reverse may happen. Generally it is important, and this is provided for in the Bill, to apply the tuberculin test carefully at long intervals to all breeding animals. That is laid down in this Bill in regard to the importation of breeding animals, which are dealt with in another Clause. In this case we are dealing, not with breeding animals, but with animals imported for meat, and I agree very much with what has been said as to its being most objectionable, and I am sure no one on this Committee would desire it, that animals should be introduced which are visibly suffering from tuberculosis. I think, however, that this suggestion might largely nullify the whole agreement with Canada, and I rather suspect that if hon. Friends of mine on this side had moved this Amendment we should have been told that we were trying to wreck the agreement. I am quite sure, having regard to the quarter from which this proposal has come, that there will be no suspicion of that.
My opinion as to whether I should vote for this Amendment or not would depend upon the interpretation that the learned Attorney-General puts on these words. There is to be a careful examination during three days before shipment, and if on such examination—that is to say, the ordinary examination during the three days—no animal examined is found to he affected with cattle plague, pleuro-pneumonia, or foot and mouth disease, they may be shipped. That examination is a more or less superficial examination, that is to say, an examination by an expert, who is able to detect visible symptoms of disease. It is not an examination spread over a long period of time, with tuberculin tests to discover latent symptoms of the disease. If I am right in that, then I can see no objection whatever to including tuberculosis as proposed in this Amendment, so that it might be certified if it were visible. If this examination is only an examination for visible symptoms, I can see no possible objection to including tuberculosis in it. While I am not here as a supporter of
the objects of the Bill, I think we are bound to treat the matter fairly and honourably; and, since the Government have made an agreement with Canada, and we agree to support the Government in carrying it out, I do not want to take advantage of a side wind. I think the object of the Amendment would be served in that way, but if we were to subject animals imported for meat at long intervals to tuberculin tests for latent tuberculosis, it would make the trade practically impossible. If these words do not carry out that object of detecting visible tuberculosis, which I think ought to be prevented from coming into this country, then perhaps the Attorney-General can suggest other words which would carry it out.

Mr. FALCONER: I suggest that the true solution of the difficulty is to leave the animals coming from Canada to be subjected, when they are made fat, to all the rigours of examination and inspection to which we subject our own fat cattle when we send them to market. That is the real place where the protection of the people is carried out. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] So far as my experience goes, there is no tuberculin test or other test for tuberculosis applied to any fat animal in this country before it is sent to market. Those who breed pedigree cattle, of course, very readily go to the expense of making careful tests with a view to excluding tuberculous animals; but, so far as the food supply of the country is concerned, the real protection is the inspector in the market, and I am surprised to learn that in any large city in any part of the country food which is not fit for consumption is allowed to be sold. I think that the practical way is undoubtedly to let these animals come over here and let them be subjected to the most rigorous examination; and, if we see fit to increase the rigour of the examination for the purpose of protecting the health of the people, let us subject our own animals to it as well as Canadian animals. I do not for a moment suggest that this proposal has been made for the purpose of killing the Bill, but I venture to say, with some experience, that the result of it will be to kill the supply of cattle from Canada, if the Clause is so read, as it may be read, that the Minister is to have placed upon him the duty of having a thorough examination
made for tuberculosis and certifying that there is no tuberculosis.

Mr. BARNES: I think that everyone will naturally sympathise with the objects of this Amendment, but I submit that it will not protect the public against tuberculosis through milk or meat. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Wallsend (Mr. P. Hastings) suggested that the examination would be quite a cursory one, but I do not agree with that at all, because in the paragraph in which the examination is referred to the word "thoroughly" is used. Therefore, I consider that, if this Amendment is carried, it will interfere to a very considerable degree with the benefits that this Bill is expected to confer upon the consumers of this country. I consider that the public are adequately safeguarded by the ordinary medical inspection that takes place at the present moment in regard to the slaughter of beasts, before the meat is put on sale to the public. In all districts where cattle are slaughtered, and before the meat is exhibited for sale to the public, the local medical officer of health is responsible for thoroughly examining the beasts. That is the time when the ordinary inspection will operate for the purpose of safeguarding the public. This Amendment, if carried, will interfere with the useful purpose of the Bill, and will not in any way help to eradicate tuberculosis in this country. If there is any real desire to tackle this question, the proper way to tackle it is, not by interfering with the usefulness of this Bill, which relates to store cattle, but to deal with the herds in this country from which the public milk supply is obtained. I consider that the public are adequately safeguarded by the present medical inspection, and, therefore, I oppose the Amendment.

Captain E. EVANS: Personally I am inclined to support the Amendment. I agree with the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Chelmsford; I do not like the Bill, but will try and act in appreciation of the fact that the Government have come to this agreement with Canada. I should, however, like to hear the Attorney-General's answer to the right hon. Gentleman's question. It seems to me that, as the Bill reads now, a cursory examination is sufficient. All that it says is that the Minister shall be
satisfied, and the discretion which the right hon. Gentleman did not want to give to the Minister now comes to our aid. The Minister must be satisfied that the cattle are not suffering from tuberculosis. That means that it is open to the Minister not to apply the tuberculin test, but to say that he will be satisfied with an ordinary examination which would reveal obvious tuberculosis.

Mr. ALEXANDER: The hon. and gallant Member for Lanark (Captain Elliot) referred to the efforts which have been made to stamp out tuberculosis in this country, but I think it comes ill at this time from those benches, when so many hon. Members opposite are responsible for the suspension of the Milk and Dairies Act, 1915. That Act would afford far more effective means of stamping out tuberculosis in the herds of this country. Further, Canada has found it necessary for many years to make Regulations against us with regard to our beasts going into Canada, because of the risk of introducing tuberculosis there, and it seems to me, judging by the support which my hon. Friend has got for his Amendment in other parts of the House, that the very thing to which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Chelmsford referred is, in fact, operating. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that those who want to see this Bill choked in its working will support my hon. Friend. We submit, from our actual experience in co-operative abattoirs, dealing with Canadian cattle slaughtered for sale in our own shops, that there is no evidence at all why such an Amendment should be carried. In my hon. Friend's own City of Glasgow we prepared evidence for submission to the Royal Commission, to the effect that these cattle from Canada were superior to any other beasts that we obtained for the purpose of supplying fresh meat to our people, and that, in relation to the number of cattle slaughtered, the number of Canadian cattle which bore any sign of infection at all was infinitesimal compared either with the cattle slaughtered from Ireland or brought from France into this country. I entirely support the suggestion that, if this is going to be inserted in the Bill, the Government ought straight away to impose a similar condition on all cattle slaughtered for human consumption. It is unfair to go back upon
a bargain with one of our Imperial Dominions by introducing a condition of this kind in the first instance before it is put into operation with regard to all cattle for slaughter. I oppose the Amendment.

Mr. TILLETT: I am very anxious that the right hon. Gentleman should give us some guarantee as to what might happen three or six months hence. The Canadians have a very careful and minute examination at present, but we want to feel just as assured, when the trade has developed and we have these restrictions and safeguards imposed, that it will be impossible to sell diseased meat. I have not been convinced by what has been stated, that we shall be protected in six or 12 months time, because in Canada those dealing with beasts for sale may be as unscrupulous as other gentlemen on this side of the ocean. I think the House ought to protect the poor particularly by some restrictions and safeguards, and we ought to have a direct assurance from the Treasury Bench that we shall be protected.

Sir D. HOGG: It is important that the Committee should realise that, whatever the purpose of the Mover of the Amendment is, the deliberate opinion, at any rate of the Canadians, is that the effect of the Amendment would be absolutely to kill the trade which the Bill intends to legalise. It is not a matter which is raised for the first time in this Committee. It was raised and discussed with the Canadian Ministers, and it was their deliberate opinion that the suggestion which is put forward in the Amendment would render the Bill absolutely valueless. Whether that is an inducement to vote for the Amendment or not I am not sure, but I think the Committee, at any rate, ought to know the facts. The next point I want to answer is the question addressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman), as to the exact effect of the Clause if the Amendment were agreed to. It was suggested by an hon. Member opposite that the Minister might be satisfied by a merely cursory examination. I do not think the Minister could do that if he were at any rate acting conscientiously in accordance with the provisions of the Bill, because the Subsection says not only that the cattle have to be examined from time to time during
the three days by a duly authorised veterinary officer, but "in particular were thoroughly so examined immediately before shipment," and he could not, in the face of those words, say that a cursory examination would satisfy him. If the interpretation which is suggested—which I agree is a possible one, that all you have to do is to be able to say that you cannot see tuberculosis—were adopted, the Amendment would be a less serious one, but it would also be very nearly a valueless one, because it would not give any assurance at all that tuberculosis was not there.
But my own impression is that the Courts would interpret these words, that after such examination no animal examined was found to be affected with tuberculosis, as requiring that the veterinary officer should be able to certify that he had thoroughly examined the animal and that it was not affected with tuberculosis, and my right hon. Friend knows that he could not possibly do that on three days' examination. He would have to do it by having a tuberculin test, with the provision, which we hope to have enacted in the second Clause, that there are to be at least 30 days after the test before the certificate can be given. So that the effect of the Clause with the Amendment in would really be to stop store cattle being brought in. The cost of keeping the cattle in quarantine is about a dollar a day, and if you are going to add 30 dollars to the cost of the animal, that will be prohibited, and the animal can never come.
The suggestion which is being made is really a suggestion to discriminate against Canada, because these store cattle are brought in to be fattened and killed and the meat to be sold in competition with home-grown meat. That is the policy of the Bill. This is going to say that whereas in respect of home-grown meat there is to be no need for any test of any sort or kind at all, before a Canadian beast can be brought in for slaughter it has to pass these rigorous tests to satisfy everyone that it has not got tuberculosis. Having regard to the fact that tuberculosis is probably far more prevalent in Great Britain than in Canada to-day—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Some evidence was given about it before the Royal Commission, which I have some reason to remember. At any rate, there is no ground for suggesting that tuberculosis is
more prevalent in Canada than it is at home. No one has given any evidence to that effect, and it would seem a little unfair to Canada to make this provision against it. This is only a provision under which store cattle may be brought in to be fattened in this country. It does not affect the right of Canada, which she has to-day, to send cattle over here for slaughter, and, therefore, the odd position will arise that she could send over tuberculous cattle to be slaughtered and eaten, but could not send them over to be fattened. Why it should be more harmful when the cattle had been fattened here than if they were slaughtered on arrival I do not know. The real protection, so far as there is protection, against eating tuberculous meat lies in the power of the medical officer of health in inspect meat, which applies equally to Canadian and to home-grown meat. It may be that the powers are not sufficiently strong or not sufficiently rigorously exercised, but if that be so, let the House alter those provisions, or insist on their being more stringently exercised; but the right way to do it is not to start by saying to Canada that we are professing to let her cattle in while we are going to make discriminations against her which she says will effectively prevent their ever coming. On those grounds I ask the Committee to refuse to accept the Amendment.

Mr. H. SIMPSON: I should like to ask the Minister for Agriculture how is the examination for these other diseases going to be conducted, namely, cattle plague, pleuro-pneumonia and foot-and-mouth disease.

Sir R. SANDERS: I really do not know the details of how the veterinary surgeon will conduct those examinations. We get a certificate from the veterinary surgeon that they have been conducted.

Mr. EDMONDS: I sincerely hope the Government will not accept the Amendment. The Mover made a very damaging statement against the breeders of this country when he said that animals are killed in his own town suffering from tuberculosis, and the parts are cut off and sold to people in the shops.

Mr. WHEATLEY: The statement I made was that the diseased part is excised
and the remainder of the carcase offered for sale.

Mr. EDMONDS: I have had a good deal to do with the meat trade, though not in the inspection of meat. I have known no meat which has been passed with tuberculous parts cut away and the other parts sold. To let the statement go forth from this House that cows which are suffering from tuberculosis are sold and distributed over the country will have a very damaging effect upon the trade in general. We are told that in Canada only 1 per cent, of the cows are suffering from tuberculosis. It seems to me if you are going to put this restriction on Canadian cattle it is the first step to try to kill the Bill. I hope after all the arguments we have heard the Government will not accept the Amendment.

Mr. WHEATLEY: In view of the Attorney-General's statement of the effect the Amendment would have on the prospects of the Bill, and having gained something by raising the discussion, I ask leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. H. SIMPSON: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2, b, i), to leave out the word "or" ["or foot-and-mouth disease "].
6.0 P.M.
The Amendments in my name on the Paper are not proposed with any intention of preventing the passage of the Bill, though I still hold the opinion that it is being rushed through with indecent haste. We have not had time to examine it properly, and I think there are still a great many points on which Amendments ought to be framed, and which I am afraid will escape. I have again raised the question of epizootic abortion. The hon. Member for Kinross and West Perth (Mr. Gardiner) on Thursday assumed that I had not read the Bill, because I was dealing with this disease. He said very properly that it was impossible for a spayed heifer to abort. I know that a spayed heifer cannot abort, and I also know quite well that an animal is chiefly dangerous from the point of view of infection after she has aborted. But the Bill does not provide sufficient security for spaying the animal. It is true that Subsection (8) says, "The expression store cattle means castrated male or splayed female bovine animals." I presume it means "spayed." [HON. MEMBERS:
"Misprint!"] If the Government is prepared to accept my Amendment that "immediately before shipment all female bovine animals intended for shipment to Great Britain shall be examined by a duly authorised veterinary officer of the Dominion of Canada, and that on such examination all such animals were found to be effectively spayed," I am prepared to withdraw all reference to epizootic abortion in all my Amendments. In case that is not accepted may I point out what my difficulties are? There is not a Member of the House who has had anything to do with the cattle breeding industry who does not know the serious effect of contagious abortion. It is exceedingly common all over the country. There are probably hon. Members who have lost thousands of pounds owing to the disease. In our particular herd we have had this disease and we have experienced the losses which it causes. We also have experience of the exceedingly severe nature of the infection which passes from animal to animal. This disease is very common in the North American Continent. We have it on the authority of the writer of an article in the Standard Encyclopædia, that in New York State, in one year alone the losses were estimated at 4,000,000 dollars. We know that that disease exists in Canada. If we are assured by the Bill that no in-calf heifer can escape and come across as a spayed store, then we need not worry about contagious abortion, but unless we have very drastic Regulations to ensure that no unspayed heifer comes across, we need such safeguard as I suggest. With regard to anthrax, there may be some reason for its having been left out of which I am not aware; but it seems to me to be a disease that ought to be regarded as fatal on any ship. We know how very rapidly it is fatal. We know that it is exceedingly infectious, and for that reason I propose that anthrax be inserted among the list of diseases to be included in the Clause. If my first Amendment be accepted I propose at the end of the paragraph to insert the words
anthrax, epizootic abortion, mange or any other disease which is declared by the Minister to be a disease within the meaning of this Section.
In that case paragraph (ii) could come out. I propose to leave out paragraph
(ii) and to insert a new paragraph to ensure that animals are spayed before shipment. I have a further Amendment dealing with the vessel in which the cattle are brought to Great Britain.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Are we to understand that all these Amendments are consequential?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain Fitzroy): I was waiting to see what the hon. Member was going to say about the third Amendment. If the hon. Member explains the first two Amendments without referring to the third Amendment he will be in order.

Mr. SIMPSON: I am afraid it is owing to my short acquaintance with the procedure of the House. I thought I had to take my Amendments together and not separately.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Only the first two Amendments will hang together; they both deal with the same thing. If the first of these Amendments is passed, the next one will, to a certain extent, be consequential upon it. These are the only two Amendments with which the hon. Member must deal at the moment.

Mr. SIMPSON: The next Amendment with regard to spaying also hangs together with the others, because, if it is passed, epizootic abortion will naturally disappear from the other Amendment.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: With regard to the third Amendment it would come better as a new paragraph.

Sir R. SANDERS: As the Amendment stands, the Minister must be satisfied that, on examination of the animals immediately before shipment, they are not affected with cattle plague, pleuro-pneumonia, foot-and-mouth disease, "anthrax, epizootic abortion, mange, or any other disease which is declared by the Minister to be a disease within the meaning of this section." The only practical effect of the hon. Member's Amendment is, therefore, to require specifically that the animals shall be certified to be free from anthrax and abortion. I am advised that it would be impracticable to certify the non-existence of these two diseases without the application of tests which would involve detention of the
animals. It is not really the same case as on the last Amendment about tuberculosis. If we wish the importation of Canadian stores to be a real thing, we must not apply tests which take so long as to render the importation too expensive to be really effective. This Amendment would make the importation of store cattle impossible. Examination for epizootic abortion seems scarcely an appropriate requirement in the case of the, animals to which this Clause applies. If at any time veterinary science could find a method by which anthrax could be discovered in an animal by any such examination as is possible in this case, it would be open to the Minister, under Paragraph (ii) to declare that disease to be a disease within the meaning of the Provision which requires that the animals shall be so shown to his satisfaction to be free from the disease at the time of shipment. In my opinion, these two Amendments would render the Bill nugatory, and I cannot accept them.

Mr. SIMPSON: Do I understand that, if an animal actually dies of anthrax among the animals waiting for shipment, the shipment will still go on?

Sir R. SANDERS: No.

Mr. SIMPSON: In what provision of the Bill can it be prevented?

Sir R. SANDERS: I know that it can be, but I cannot refer the hon. Member to the Section at the moment.

Mr. SIMPSON: We are entitled to know.

Mr. LAMBERT: I must back up my hon. Friend in asking that the Minister shall tell us. My hon. Friend has asked a plain question. If an animal dies of anthrax amongst a number of animals coming from Canada, what power is there in the Bill to prevent that shipment coming here? It is a very pertinent question, and the Committee is very much obliged to my hon. Friend for putting it so clearly. I cannot, without some protest, allow the Minister to say: "I know it is in the Bill, but I cannot tell you where." Animals may be imported suffering from disease, tuberculosis, anthrax, and so on. It is amazing, coming from a party which professes to be the friend of the farmer. I think the farmers will
pray, "Deliver us from our friends," if this is to go on. If a bargain has been made and we cannot alter it, I am afraid that the Canadian authorities have walked round the Ministry of Agriculture this time as they did before.

Sir R. SANDERS: Clause 1, Sub-section (3), is as follows:
Cattle landed under this Section shall be detained at the landing place at which they are landed and there isolated from all other animals for such period, commencing from the time at which the landing of the cattle is completed, as may be required for the thorough examination of the cattle by veterinary inspectors and the issue of licences for their movement, and no cattle shall be moved from the landing place unless and until the movement is authorised by a licence granted in accordance with the provisions of the Schedule to this Act.
A licence would not be granted under such circumstances.

Mr. SIMPSON: That was not my question. My question was whether, if there was a case of anthrax on the other side and an animal died, the shipment would still proceed. Apparently, from what my right hon. Friend says, the shipment would proceed, and the anthrax would be fetched to this side, and the Ministry of Agriculture would then proceed to deal with it.

Sir R. SANDERS: They would have died on the way.

Amendment negatived.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: With regard to the next Amendment, the hon. Member proposes to leave out paragraph (ii), and to insert:
(ii) that immediately before shipment all female bovine animals intended for shipment to Great Britain shall be examined by a duly authorised veterinary officer of the Dominion of Canada, and that on such examination all such animals were found to be effectively spayed.
That would come better as a new Subsection (d).

Mr. SIMPSON: I beg to move, in Subsection (2, b, iii), to leave out the words
if at any time within twenty-eight days before the shipment of the cattie the vessel in which the cattle are brought to Great Britain had had on board any animal which had been exported or carried coastwise from any port or place in any country other than Great Britain or the Dominion of Canada, or had entered or been within any such port or place, the vessel
and to insert instead thereof the words,
the vessel in which the cattle are brought to Great Britain.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Does not the hon. Member want to move out paragraph (ii)?

Mr. SIMPSON: Not now, because the Amendment has not been accepted. My intention in the Amendment I now propose is to ensure that there is disinfection of the ship after each voyage. The only vessel which is bound to be cleansed and disinfected is the vessel which has been plying between other countries, or coastwise in other countries. It seems to me that after shipment of store cattle from Canada to England the vessel should be cleansed and disinfected before it is again used.

Sir R. SANDERS: The effect of this Amendment would be that all vessels in which store cattle are brought from Canada shall be effectively disinfected before the shipment of cattle. The Bill provides that this shall only be required where, at any time within 28 days before the shipment of cattle, the vessel had had on board any animal which had been exported or carried coastwise from any port or place in any other country than Great Britain or the Dominion of Canada or had entered or been within any such port or place. The Committee will recollect that the exceptional facilities afforded by Clause 1 are only to remain in force while the Minister still has

reason to believe that cattle plague, pleuro-pneumonia or foot-and-mouth disease exists or has recently existed in Canada, and therefore it appears to be unnecessary to provide for the disinfection of any vessel which is confined to traffic between Canada and Great Britain, which can only reasonably be required where there is some risk of infection. We ought not to hamper the trade with unnecessary restrictions, and therefore I hope that my hon. Friend will not press this Amendment.

Mr. SIMPSON: I shall certainly press this Amendment if, as I gather from the right hon. Gentleman, there is to be no disinfection, for instance, if mange breaks out on the voyage. I do not see that there is any provision for that in this Bill, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether there is a provision in the Bill that if mange breaks out on the voyage the ship shall be disinfected.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee proceeded to a Division.

Mr. PRINGLE: (seated and covered): Why are the doors open on one side, and locked on the other? The doors are locked so that Members cannot get into the "No" Lobby, while Members can get into the "Aye" Lobby?

The Committee divided: Ayes, 317; Noes, 51.

Division No. 38.]
AYES.
[6.20 p.m.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Broad, F. A.
Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Brotherton, J.
Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beare


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton, East)
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Conway, Sir W. Martin


Alexander, Col. M. (Southwark)
Brown, J. W. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Cope, Major William


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Bruton, Sir James
Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.


Allen, Lieut.-Col. Sir William James
Buckingham, Sir H.
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)


Ammon, Charles George
Buckle, J.
Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Henry Page


Attlee, C. R.
Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Crook, C. W. (East Ham, North)


Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Crooke, J. S. (Deritend)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)
Curzon, Captain Viscount


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Butcher, Sir John George
Darbishire, C. W.


Banks, Mitchell
Butt, Sir Alfred
Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.


Barlow, Rt. Hon. Sir Montague
Cairns, John
Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)


Barnes, A.
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Dawson, Sir Philip


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Dixon, C. H. (Rutland)


Benn, sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)
Doyle, N. Grattan


Bennett, Sir T. J. (Sevenoaks)
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Duncan, C.


Berry, Sir George
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Dunnico, H.


Betterton, Henry B.
Charleton, H. C.
Edmondson, Major A. J.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Churchman, Sir Arthur
Ednam, Viscount


Bird, Sir W. B. M. (Chichester)
Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Coates, Lt.-Col, Norman
Entwistle, Major C. F.


Brass, Captain W.
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Erskine-Bolst, Captain C.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Collie, Sir John
Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.


Falcon, Captain Michael
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)


Falconer, J.
Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Falls, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Joynson-Hicks, Sir William
Riley, Ben


Fermor-Hesketh, Major T.
Kenyon, Barnet
Ritson, J.


Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.
King, Capt. Henry Douglas
Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)


Flanagan, W. H.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Ford, Patrick Johnston
Kirkwood, D.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. Sir S. (Ecclesall)


Foreman, Sir Henry
Lamb, J. O.
Robertson, J. D. (Islington, W.)


Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R.
Robinson, W. C. (York, Elland)


Fremantle, Lieut. Colonel Francis E.
Lansbury, George
Rogerson, Capt. J. E.


Furness, G. J.
Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Ganzoni, Sir John
Lawson, John James
Royce, William Stapleton


Gardiner, James
Leach, W.
Ruggles-Brise, Major E.


Garland, C. S.
Lee, F.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Gates, Percy
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Russell, William (Bolton)


Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R.
Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Lorimer, H. D.
Saklatvala, S.


Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Lort-Williams, J.
Salter, Dr. A.


Gray, Frank (Oxford)
Lowe, Sir Francis William
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Greenall, T.
Lowth, T.
Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.


Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)
Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)
Sanderson, Sir Frank B.


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Lumley, L. R.
Sandon, Lord


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Lunn, William
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
M'Entee, V. L.
Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)


Grigg, Sir Edward
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Scrymgeour, E.


Groves, T.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Shepperson, E. W.


Grundy, T. W.
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
Shinwell, Emanuel


Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon, W. E.
March, S.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Guthrie, Thomas Mauie
Margesson, H. D. R.
Sitch, Charles H.


Gwynne, Rupert S.
Martin, A. E. (Essex, Romford)
Skelton, A. N.


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, E.)
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Mathew, C. J.
Smith, Sir Harold (Wavertree)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)
Maxton, James
Snell, Harry


Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W (Liv'p'l, W. D'by)
Mercer, Colonel H.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Halstead, Major D,
Middleton, G.
Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furness)


Hamilton, Sir George C. (Altrincham)
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)


Hancock, John George
Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)
Spencer, H. H. (Bradford. S.)


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Steel, Major S. Strang


Hardie, George D.
Molson, Major John Eisdale
Stephen, Campbell


Harris, Percy A.
Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.
Stewart, Gershom (Wirral)


Harrison, F. C.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Harvey, Major S. E.
Morden, Col. W. Grant
Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.


Hawke, John Anthony
Morel, E. D.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart)
Morrison, Hugh (Wilts, Salisbury)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Hayday, Arthur
Muir, John W.
Thomson, Luke (Sunderland)


Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Murchison, C. K.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Murnin, H.
Tillett, Benjamin


Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Herbert, S. (Scarborough)
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)
Tubbs, S. W.


Herriotts, J.
Newman, sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Turner, Ben


Hewett, Sir J. P.
Newson, Sir Percy Wilson
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Hiley, Sir Ernest
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Wallace, Captain E.


Hill, A.
Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Hirst, G. H.
Nichol, Robert
Warne, G. H.


Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.
Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John
Watson, Capt. J. (Stockton-on-Tees)


Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
O'Grady, Captain James
Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington)


Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Oliver, George Harold
Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.


Hogge, James Myles
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Wells, S. R.


Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy
Paling, W.
Westwood, J.


Hood, Sir Joseph
Parker, Owen (Kettering)
Wheatley, J.


Hopkins, John W. W.
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike
Whaler, Col. Granville C. H.


Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)
Pennefather, De Fonblanque
Whiteley, W.


Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.
Penny, Frederick George
Wignall, James


Hudson, Capt. A.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Hume, G. H.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Hurd, Percy A.
Philipson, H. H.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Hurst, Lt.-Col. Gerald Berkeley
Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Hutchison, W. (Kelvingrove)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Windsor, Viscount


Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Potts, John S.
Wise, Frederick


Irving, Dan
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Wolmer, Viscount


Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.
Wood, Rt. Hn. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Privett, F. J.
wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Jarrett, G. W. S.
Raeburn, sir William H.
Worsfold, T. Cato


Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Rawson, Lieut.-Com. A. C.
Yerburgh, R. D. T.


Jephcott, A. R.
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Jodrell, Sir Neville Paul
Reynolds, W. G. W.



Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)
Rhodes, Lieut.-Col. J. P.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Richards, R.
Colonel Gibbs and Major Barnston.


NOES.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Blundell, F. N.
Briant, Frank


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Bonwick, A.
Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham)


Berkeley, Captain Reginald
Bowdler, W. A.
Brutord, R.




Burnie, Major J, (Bootle)
Hinds, John
Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)


Cautley, Henry Strother
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Sinclair, Sir A.


Chapple, W. A.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Snowden, Philip


Clarke, Sir E. C.
Linfield, F. C.
Sparkes, H. W.


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Marks, Sir George Croydon
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Collison, Levi
Marshall, Sir Arthur H.
Thornton, M.


Emlyn-Jones, J. E. (Dorset, N.)
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz
Turton, Edmund Russborough


Evans, Capt. H. Arthur (Leicester, E.)
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)


Gilbert, James Daniel
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)
Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)


Goff, Sir R. Park
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Wintringham, Margaret


Gray, Harold (Cambridge)
Nield, Sir Herbert
Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Paget, T. G.
Young, Rt. Hon. E. H. (Norwich)


Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Pattinson, S. (Horncastle)



Harney, E. A.
Phillipps, Vivian
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hillary, A. E.
Pringle, W. M. R.
Mr. Hope Simpson and Mr. Foot.


Question put, and agreed to.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
This has been a most extraordinary Debate. We have had from the Minister written answers to each Amendment that has been moved, and he has read those answers to the House. I think we should report Progress in order that the Government might know in greater detail the Bill that they are putting before the House. I do not remember any case previously where the Minister has prepared answers written for him and has been unable to answer the simplest questions put afterwards by any Member who is interested in the Bill. As to the last Amendment, I do not suppose that there was a single Member, apart from the Mover, who understood what it was about. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Many hon. Members were not in the House to hear the Amendment moved. Its effect was to leave out paragraph iii. We had no arguments from the Mover as to why that should be done. The Government came with prepared answers to a particular proposal, namely, to insert certain words, but there was not one word as to the merits or demerits of what it was proposed to leave out. In the circumstances we should ask the Government to postpone further consideration of the Bill until they have had time to consider the Amendments, so that they may be able to conduct the Bill properly through the House.

Sir R. SANDERS: I regret that at the time I was not as fully acquainted with the particular point raised by the hon. Member opposite as to be able to answer it at the moment. The fact is, that the provision was in the Act of 1894 and not in this Bill.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. LAMB: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (2, b, v), to insert a new paragraph—
(vi) the cattle must be either castrated males or spayed females.
The words of this Amendment appear in Sub-section (8) of this Clause. That Sub-section attempts to explain what is a store. As a matter of fact, it does not do so. I prefer to have the words inserted as proposed in the Amendment. It would be very difficult for anyone to say exactly what was a "store." In view of that difficulty, it would be very much better to leave out the definition rather than put it in. My object is to see that the cattle which come in are store cattle. As a matter of fact, fat cattle can come in under this Bill, and they can be kept under the regulations for six days. They can then be circulated throughout the country and sold as fat cattle, and the buyer would assume that they had been bred in this country.

Sir F. BANBURY: They are marked.

Mr. LAMB: They may be marked, but by the time they got to the shop I am afraid that the mark would have been taken off them. When they were placed on the block in the butcher's shop the purchaser would think that he was buying something which had been fed in this country. If I understand the feeling on the opposite side of the House and on this side, there is a desire that this Bill shall lead to more employment and greater cultivation. The younger these cattle are when imported as stores, the longer will be the period before they can be sold as fat cattle, the greater will be the amount of cultivation necessary, and the greater the amount of labour necessary for attendance on the cattle. If they came in as fat cattle, those objects would be defeated. If the words are left as they stand in Sub-section (8), they defeat the objects of the Bill.

Sir R. SANDERS: I am ready to accept this Amendment in substance, but I am advised that as a matter of drafting it would be better that it should come at the end of Sub-section (8), where the word "store" is defined. When we reach that part of the Bill I should be prepared to move that, at the end of Sub-section (8), there be added the words, "which are intended for feeding purposes and not for immediate slaughter."

Mr. HARDIE: Take the case of the cattle coming from Ireland and arriving in Glasgow. I understand that they are inspected in Ireland and again in Glasgow.

Sir R. SANDERS: The whole of this Clause refers only to Canadian cattle.

Mr. PRETYMAN: I suggest that we might accept the Government Amendment, and between now and Report the wording might be a little more closely examined in case some verbal alteration may be necessary. I do not like a definition of a store which is not really in accordance with the meaning of the English language. The suggestion made by the Minister meets the point of the Amendment under discussion, namely, that the animals should not be fat.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. LAMBERT: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (2, c), to insert the words
and any condition imposed on the importation of British cattle into Canada shall be imposed on the importation of Canadian cattle into Great Britain.
The Amendment seems to be the enunciation of a thoroughly sound principle. Whatever restrictions the Canadians place upon British cattle going into Canada, precisely the same restrictions should be placed upon Canadian cattle coming into Great Britain. I feel rather astounded that the Canadians place such very severe restrictions on British cattle going into Canada. The importation of cattle into Canada from Great Britain has been prohibited since the 5th August, 1919. It does not seem to me right that we should now say that these cattle are to come into Great Britain without all the tests and all the restrictions which are placed upon British cattle going into Canada. After all, no
Cattle can go into Canada unless a certificate of health is given by a qualified veterinary surgeon. There must also be an export certificate from the Ministry of Agriculture, testifying that no case of cattle plague, contagious pleuropneumonia, rinderpest or foot and mouth disease has existed during the previous six mouths in the district from whence the animals come, and all cattle imported into Canada from Britain are subject to 30 days' quarantine. If Canada insists on 30 days' quarantine for cattle sent from our herds, why should we not impose precisely the same restriction upon the Canadian cattle? I understand that some kind of bargain has been entered into between the Minister of Agriculture and the Canadian authorities. If that be so, all I can say is that the Canadian authorities appear to have walked round the Board of Agriculture. They did that once before. In the Imperial War Conference in 1917, the Canadian authorities simply bamboozled the then President of the Board of Agriculture.
British breeding cattle are the finest cattle in the world. Agriculturists to-day have a very severe task before them, and surely, if we are debarred from sending our cattle—the finest in the world—to Canada without all these restrictions, then the same restrictions ought to be imposed upon cattle coming from Canada into Great Britain. I want some kind of reciprocity. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Well, surely if we want to encourage Free Trade we should encourage the free import of British cattle into Canada. I hope to convert the hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme Colonel Wedgwood) to the principle of Free Trade. Live animals coming from Canada can spread disease here. We are told we may import breeding animals from Canada into this country with some kind of quarantine—the Minister has the power of imposing these conditions—but British breeders are to be penalised by Canadian authorities, whilst we in Britain are admitting the Canadian cattle free, I do not think that is fair. I do not think it would go down with any agricultural audience. Any body of farmers would say, "Let us have equality of treatment as between the two countries." I think I could go down into the constituency of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of
Agriculture and persuade the Farmers' Union there that his action in this case is not fair to British farmers. If there are to be restrictions upon British cattle going to Canada, a bargain should be made with the Canadian authorities. If you are to allow Canadian cattle into this country free, then the restrictions on the Canadian side should be removed. I trust the Minister of Agriculture will accept this Amendment. It will not really kill the Bill; it only asks for equal treatment, to which I am sure the Canadian authorities will not object. I move it in all good faith to provide for fair treatment for the British breeder of blood-stock.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I understand the right hon. Gentleman the Mover of this Amendment to be the parent of the re-united Liberal party, and the Amendment itself is based upon the good old fair trade doctrine which we heard of 40 years ago. One would imagine, listening to the right hon. Gentleman's speech, that we were merely allowing Canadian cattle into this country for the benefit of the Canadians, and that, from our own point of view, our interest would best be served by keeping them out. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that we on the Labour Benches are supporting this Bill, not in the interests of the Canadians, but in the interests of the British people, the consumers in this country, who want to get cheap meat. When I hear ex-Liberal Ministers and leaders in the re-united Liberal party coming forward with the strange new Liberal doctrine that importations into any country are solely for the benefit of the people who export, and not of the people who receive the goods, I am not at all surprised that the Liberal party is in bad water at the present time.

Sir D. HOGG: It is a great misfortune to me that I am unable to ask the Committee to accept this Amendment. The pleasure of hearing the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert) preaching the gospel of reciprocity was one which some of us, at any rate, hailed with great satisfaction, and we shall be glad to see him taking his place in a different party. In fact, however, the Amendment is baaed on a misapprehension. This is a Clause dealing with the importation of store cattle from Canada to Great Britain. There is no such trade from Great Britain to Canada. We do not export store cattle to Canada, and
they would have no facilities for fattening them if we did. It is very largely because they cannot fatten their store cattle that they want this Bill. When we come to the question of the importation and export of pedigree cattle for breeding purposes, we get in Clause 2 certain provisions which we shall discuss in due course, and these deal with the precautions which we think necessary before such cattle can come over here. So far as store cattle are concerned, there is no analogous provision in Canada, because the trade does not exist of exporting such cattle from Great Britain to Canada. I would point out further that the provisions suggested in the Amendment would lead to very odd results, because supposing, unfortunately, it happened that there was foot-and-mouth disease in England and not in Canada, and Canada accordingly said, "We shall not allow cattle to be imported from England because there is foot-and-mouth disease there," we should automatically have to stop cattle coming here from Canada, although there was no foot-and-mouth disease in Canada, because you would have to impose the same restriction each way. The Amendment does not carry out what my right hon. Friend wishes for, namely, the excellent principle of reciprocity, and it is based on a misapprehension as to what is the subject matter of Clause 1.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. H. SIMPSON: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (2, c), to insert a new paragraph—
(d) Immediately before shipment all female bovine animals intended for shipment to Great Britain shall be examined by a duly authorised veterinary officer of the Dominion of Canada, and that on such examination all such animals were found to be effectively spayed.
I have no doubt the Government, if it does not accept this Amendment, will agree to some provision on the same lines. There is not in the Bill, as far as I can see, any effective provision for ensuring that all heifers which come over are spayed. It is true that Sub-section (8) provides that store cattle shall mean castrated male or spayed female bovine animals, but there is no provision for such inspection as will ensure that none but spayed animals are allowed to leave for England. If the right hon. Gentleman can point to any provision which will ensure
inspection for spaying I shall be glad to withdraw the Amendment, but otherwise I hope the Government will agree to it.

7.0 P.M.

Sir R. SANDERS: The object of the Amendment, I take it, is to make quite sure that any heifers sent here have been inspected and found to be spayed. This was discussed at the Conference with the Canadian Ministers and the point was brought before them. The universal practice in Canada appears to be to spay animals through the flank, and the scar thus formed is testimony that they have been spayed. It was suggested at the Conference that cattle owners might adopt the practice of marking the animals without spaying them, so as to defeat the intention of Clause 1. The Canadian representatives said in their opinion there was not sufficient inducement to the owners to adopt this practice. If it did occur, they would be in a position by internal administration or legislation to stop the practice. I am informed that if there was any serious evasion of this spaying provision the Minister here could prevent the landing of such heifers except under the same conditions as apply to the landing of heifers under Clause 2. Therefore, really, the danger is theoretical, and very small. It is provided for both in Canada and in powers which the Minister has here. Under those circumstances, I do not think it is necessary to insert these words.

Mr. FOOT: Although the right hon. Gentleman says this is a matter of trifling importance, it was of sufficient importance apparently to be discussed between his Department and the Canadian representatives when they were here. Although my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Hope Simpson) has put down the Amendment here, he has raised a point which was discussed by the Conference held only a week or two ago. One can hardly understand, therefore, what objection there can be to this Amendment. It is not as if any extra inspection will be required.

Sir R. SANDERS: I am informed that extra inspection would be required, and that would be rather difficult to fit in.

Mr. FOOT: As I understand it, every animal has to be inspected before it leaves Canada. Not only so, but under
the terms of this Clause, it has to be thoroughly examined for other purposes. One can hardly imagine that the officer who has thoroughly to examine the animal would have to spend very much extra time in ascertaining whether it has been effectively spayed or not. If this Amendment meant that an examination had to take place which was not provided for otherwise, there would be some ground for the right hon. Gentleman's opposition. Seeing, however, that the animals have to be inspected for other purposes and to be thoroughly examined, surely there can be no objection to this further examination being made in order to afford protection for the agriculturists of this country.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: It seems to me this Amendment would defeat the purpose of the Bill. Those of us who have been fighting year after year to get this embargo removed know that this question has been raised again and again, and that it has been examined and defeated. The Amendment is only put down again in order that it may defeat the real purpose of the Bill.

Mr. H. SIMPSON: On a point of Order. This charge against me is untrue. I have no desire at all to defeat the Bill.

Mr. ALEXANDER: I want to say, first of all, that even if by chance a Canadian cow were imported into this country without having been effectively spayed it would not be such a terrible thing, as some hon. Members are making out. I have recollections of evidence given before the Royal Commission on the importation of Store Cattle, not merely by the ordinary grazier farmer, but by a man who is used to producing pedigree stock.Mr. William Henderson, of Coupar Angus, a raiser of fine pedigree short-horn cattle, said, I think, before the Royal Commission that if he had to use Canadian cows as foster mothers to calves intended for pedigree breeding he would not have lost a night's sleep about it. The suggestion underlying the Amendment is that if by chance a Canadian cow got through without being spayed, there would be a grave danger of that cow conveying disease. Any such suggestion is a foul calumny upon the record of the Canadian herds. I think the evidence, produced before this House and before the Royal Commission, again and again,
is perfectly conclusive in favour of the introduction of Canadian cattle to this country. Therefore, I hope the Minister will not accept the Amendment, and that we shall not go to a division.

Mr. PRETYMAN: I think the hon. Member who spoke last has put rather a different complexion upon the matter. Ho rather seemed to lead the House to believe that it was a good thing to introduce lunspayed cattle into this country. Clearly, the agreement is that all store cattle shall be spayed. That is the agreement we want to see carried out. If the suggestion is that this is not to be carried out, and that that will be a very good thing, I think all of us on this side of the House will feel it our duty to vote for the Amendment. We have got to be satisfied that there is a good defence against this Amendment. If we are satisfied that it would be a very rare thing indeed I would not say that we should insist upon a special and very definite examination in order to escape from a rare case. I agree that a single very rare case would not be disastrous, but the hon. Member was arguing very much farther than that. I should like to have a really definite assurance from the Minister of Agriculture that he is absolutely satisfied that on either side—I do not care which, either on:he Canadian side or on this side— the matter will be properly dealt with. I take it that if an animal were discovered not to be properly spayed on this side it would have to be slaughtered, and that if it were discovered on the other side it would not be allowed to come across until it were spayed. So long as we can be definitely assured that that will be the case, and that there are entirely satisfactory precautions on the Canadian side to insure that that will be so, I do not think it will be necessary to press this Amendment. In the absence of such an assurance, I shall certainly vote for it.

Mr. ALEXANDER: I think I specifically used the words "if by chance a cow came in."

Sir R. SANDERS: I think the right lion. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Prety-man) was perfectly right in the way he put the point. So far as I can learn, it would only be by the merest chance, and if would very seldom happen that the regulations could be evaded.

Mr. PRETYMAN: are you assuming, in practice, that there is some watch kept in regard to this matter?

Sir R. SANDERS: Yes, on both sides.

Mr. LAMB: Can we be assured that an animal which, after its importation, is found not to be properly spayed, will be slaughtered?

Sir R. SANDERS: Yes, then it comes under the Act.

Sir ALFRED MOND: The hon. Member who moved the Amendment proposed that a veterinary surgeon who was already making an examination should carry that examination to the logical conclusion. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture then says: "It is unnecessary, because the Canadian authorities assure us that if you look at the flanks of these heifers or cows you can see whether or not they have been spayed." If that be so, I cannot understand why a veterinary, looking at the cattle, cannot do that if that is all that is required. If that is not all that is required, I do not see the value of that argument. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that the Canadian representatives said that if the principle were evaded they would in some way take administrative action. He did not say in what way the administrative action would be taken, or why that should be any simpler than the very simple proposal in the Amendment. The right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman) suggested that we should start a system of inspection at our ports, and put the burden of the expense of the inspection on the British taxpayer, instead of the proposal in the Amendment, which throws some of the expense on to the other side. I cannot quite follow that line of thought. These cattle are going to be inspected. Surely it is cheaper that the man in Canada who is inspecting them should carry his inspection there to a logical end than that we should have another staff on this side to inspect the animals here. If we do not have a thorough system of inspection I cannot understand how we shall ever have any check or know whether a case is a bad one. I cannot gather from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman that there is any reason why the Amendment should not be accepted, and if the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Hope Simpson) goes to a Division, I shall support him.

Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived.

Mr. CAUTLEY: I beg to move, in Subsection (3), after the word "period" ["for such period"], to insert the words "not being less than three days."

This part of the Bill deals with what would happen to cattle after they have left the ship and been landed. It provides that they should be detained for such purpose as is necessary, that is to say,
as may be required for the thorough examination of the cattle by veterinary inspectors and the issue of licences for their movement, and no cattle shall be moved from the landing place unless and until the movement is authorised by a licence granted in accordance with"—
and so on. This Sub-section states that cattle shall be detained. I am not really on the point of time, but I wish to ask the learned Attorney-General what penalty is provided by this Act through any breach of this portion of it? So far as I can read the Bill, there are no penalties at all in any part of it. If these cattle are taken out of detention improperly, what means has the Minister of Agriculture to enforce those provisions? The question of penalty was raised on the earlier part of the Bill, which deals with cattle whilst they are aboard the ship. The Attorney-General's answer to that was that they would be treated as cattle brought over here, not as store cattle, and they would not get the benefit of this Act, but would be slaughtered. That apparently was an answer to any breach of the Act when they were on board the ship, but there is no penalty here, or means of enforcing these provisions in regard to what is done to the cattle improperly during the three days' detention.

Sir D. HOGG: The answer to the question which has been raised by the hon. and learned Member is this. He will find in Clause 12, Sub-section (3) of this Bill;
This Act shall be deemed to form part of and shall be construed as one with the principal Act,
that is, the 1894 Act, and thereupon, of course, if he looks at that Act, under Section 51, he will find penalties prescribed, of a fine not exceeding £20, and then a fine not exceeding £5 for each animal, if it is in respect of more than four animals, and certain additional
penalties. He will get the answer to his question, therefore, by reading the two together.

Mr. CAUTLEY: That seems to answer my question, and I would, therefore, like to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. H. SIMPSON: I beg to move, in Sub-section (5), to leave out the words "any such disease as aforesaid," and to insert thereof the words,
cattle plague, pleuro-pneumonia, foot-and-mouth disease, or anthrax.
This Sub-section (5) lays down the cases in which the person in charge of the cattle shall slaughter the animals under the orders of a veterinary inspector if they suffer from certain diseases. The words "any such diseases as aforesaid" refer to the previous Sub-section, in which the diseases ate stated to be cattle plague, pleuro-pneumonia, or foot-and-mouth disease, but I think it is clear that if an animal is found to be suffering from anthrax on the arrival of a consignment from Canada, the whole of the animals in contact should and would be slaughtered. I, therefore, propose that anthrax should be added to the diseases in consequence of which slaughter is permitted. I presume that the Government will have no objection to the addition, because they have, as a matter of fact, power to slaughter for anthrax once the animals have come ashore, and there seems no reason why anthrax should not be added to these three other diseases, than which it is no less fatal.

Sir D. HOGG: The reason why anthrax is not included as one of the diseases which shall involve the slaughter of the animals is this—that we are advised that the worst possible thing you could do in the case of anthrax would be to slaughter the animals, because it happens that the way in which infection is carried is mainly by the blood, and if you slaughter the animals you increase enormously the risk of infection. I am advised, although I have not had time to turn up the particular Section yet, that in the Anthrax Order of 1899, which applies to cases of anthrax in this country, so far from slaughter being enjoined, it is prohibited under penalty. That being so, it would seem a little unwise to make it obligatory in this case.

Mr. SIMPSON: I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir D. HOGG: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (8), to insert the words "which are intended for feeding purposes, and not for immediate slaughter."

Mr. BLUNDELL: On a point of Order, Captain Fitzroy. I gave notice of an Amendment in Sub-section (5) of Clause 1.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I passed over that Amendment.

Sir D. HOGG: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture gave a pledge a little earlier that at the end of Sub-section (8) he would move this Amendment, the purpose being to confine the expression "store cattle" to cattle which are imported for the purposes of fattening and not to include cattle which are already fat.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 2.—(Power of Minister to authorise conditionally importation of Canadian animals.)

The Minister may, notwithstanding anything in the principal Act, by Order authorise any Canadian animals, whether store cattle or not, to be landed in Great Britain otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of the last preceding Section of this Act and without being subject to the provisions of Part I of the Third Schedule to the principal Act, if, in the case of any such animals being cattle, there is produced a certificate issued by a duly authorised officer of the Dominion of Canada to the effect that the animals were within one month before shipment effectively tested for tuberculosis and were found to be free therefrom, and if the animals are landed in accordance with such conditions, to be prescribed in the Order, as may, in the opinion of the Minister, be necessary or expedient for the prevention of the introduction of disease, other than tuberculosis, into Great Britain."

Mr. CAUTLEY: I beg to move, to leave out the word "whether" ["animals, whether store cattle"], and to insert instead thereof the words "other than."
This Amendment raises a matter of considerable importance. Clause 2 enables a Minister to authorise conditionally the importation of Canadian cattle, and- the object of my Amendment is to confine that
power to cattle other than store cattle, that is to say, to breeding cattle. Personally, I do not desire to see breeding cattle imported from Canada into this country, but I have not carried out my personal feeling so far as to move an Amendment to reject the whole Clause, and so as to exclude breeding cattle, but the frame of this Bill is to give power for imported store cattle from Canada to come into this country under conditions which are set out in Clause 1. If they fail to comply with those conditions, they will be treated as cattle coming into the country subject to the principal Act of 1894 and will be liable to slaughter. We have taken some considerable trouble in defining these conditions under which store cattle are to come in, and the object of my Amendment is to say that store cattle shall come into this country, if at all, only on those conditions that we have laid down, with such variations in the Orders that the Minister has under these conditions power to give by Order in Council. Clause 2 seems to me, so far as store cattle are concerned, to negative what we have done for the last two hours, because it reads:
The Minister may, notwithstanding anything in the principal Act, by Order authorise any Canadian animals, whether store cattle or not, to be landed in Great Britain otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of the last preceding Section of this Act,
directly altering what we have already done, and it goes on,
and without being subject to the provisions of Part I. of the Third Schedule to the principal Act,
meaning thereby that they cannot to subject to slaughter as they would be under the principal Act. Then there is this,
if, in the case of any such animals being cattle, there is produced a certificate issued by a duly authorised officer of the Dominion of Canada to the effect that the animals were within one month before shipment effectively tested for tuberculosis and were found to be free therefrom, and if the animals are landed in accordance with such conditions, to be prescribed in the Order, as may, in the opinion of the Minister, be necessary or expedient for the prevention of the introduction of disease, other than tuberculosis, into Great Britain.
What earthly object is there for giving these powers to the Minister in reference to store cattle? There can be none, and I defy the Attorney-General to give any reason for negativing what we have
already done in limiting the conditions under which store cattle can come into this country.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: On a point of Order. How is this Amendment intended to read? As it stands on the Paper, it does not make sense.

Mr. CAUTLEY: I have handed in to the Chair a manuscript Amendment, to leave out the words "or not" after the word "cattle" ["whether store cattle or not"], and that will meet the objection of the hon. and gallant Member. It may be necessary that the Minister should have these powers in the case of breeding cattle, and, as far as I can gather, to the conditions respecting breeding cattle I have no personal objection, because I gather they are somewhat similar to the terms that the Canadian Government insist on having on breeding cattle imported from this country into Canada, and it may be desirable that there should be reciprocal power given to our Minister, but no such considerations can apply to store cattle.

Sir D. HOGG: I rather agree with my hon. and learned Friend that there is no real reason why this Amendment should not be accepted. I do not think, if he will forgive me saying so, that it makes very much difference in what would happen, because he will appreciate that under Clause 2 the provisions as to 30 days' quarantine on the Canadian side and quarantine under Part II of the Third Schedule of the Act of 1894 on this side would effectively prevent anybody wishing to bring store cattle over here under Clause 2 rather than under Clause 1, but I think he is logically right, and, on behalf of the Government, I have no objection to this Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: Leave out the words "or not" ["store cattle or not"].

Leave out the words
otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of the last' preceding Section of this Act and."—[Mr. Cautley.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Sir F. BANBURY: I had intended to move to leave out this Clause, but, as
my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has shown such a great desire to meet our wishes on this side of the Committee, and has accepted the proposal of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Grinstead (Mr. Cautley), I shall not move to leave out the Clause. Although I am not altogether satisfied with the actual effect of the provisions, we have to be thankful for small mercies, and I appreciate what the Government have done.

CLAUSE 3.—Meaning of "imported animals" and provision-as to landing of animals from Ireland.

For the word "foreign" wherever that word is used in relation to an animal or thing in the principal Act, or any Act amending the provisions of that Act relating to foreign animals or foreign things, there shall be substituted the word "imported," and for the purposes of the principal Act as so amended an imported animal or an imported thing shall mean an animal or thing brought to Great Britain from a country out of Great Britain, and the provisions of the principal Act as so amended relating to imported animals and imported things shall have effect as though the expression "Great Britain" were therein substituted for the expression "the United Kingdom," but except to such extent as the Minister may by Order direct, the provisions of the Third Schedule to the principal Act shall not apply to animals brought to Great Britain from Ireland or any part thereof:

Provided that if the Minister is satisfied that cattle plague, pleuro-pneumonia or foot-and-mouth disease exists or has recently existed in, or that adequate provision is not made for the prevention of the introduction of any such disease into, any part of Ireland, he may by Order prohibit the landing in Great Britain of animals or any class of animals brought from Ireland or any part thereof, or may apply the said provisions to animals or any class of animals so brought with such modifications, if any, as ho may think necessary or expedient.

Captain CRAIG: I beg to move, after the word "Britain" ["thing brought to Great Britain"], to insert the words "or Northern Ireland."
This Amendment is designed to bring up for discussion the question of the imposition of restrictions on Irish cattle brought into this country. It was fully argued on Second Reading. The House will remember that our strong objection to the imposition of these restrictions is, in the first place, because this Bill was intended to deal solely with Canadian
cattle, and was not an Irish Bill at all. In the second place, the Bill was only produced after the Session had begun, and was not even mentioned in the King's Speech. The third reason why we felt that these restrictions should not be imposed on Irish cattle is that we do not consider them necessary, and we do not consider that, even if you do impose the restrictions contained in the Bill, they will have the effect which the promoters of the Bill apparently think they will have. We were ignorant as to the exact position when we spoke in the last Debate, because we were not aware, and had been unable to find out, whether there was any pledge given to anybody on this subject. I am glad to say that, thanks to the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman), we know now that these proposals have not been included in this Bill in consequence of any pledge given either to the Canadians or to the farming interests in this country, because the right hon. Gentleman said in connection with this matter:
So fur from this particular provision (that is, the provision imposing restrictions on Irish cattle) having arisen out of the Agreement with Canada, it simply arises from a definite recommendation made by the Foot-and-Mouth Diseases Committee, after examining into the whole of the facts of this outbreak.
Later in his speech, the right hon. Gentleman said:
In order to deal with that (that is, the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease last year, and the damage which was done thereby) which has cost us £1,000,000, the Committee have recommended to the Minister what is proposed to be carried out in this Bill, if the House is good enough to approve of it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th December, 1922; cols. 2086 and 2087, Vol. 169.]
So that we come now to the certain knowledge that these proposals, to which we object so strongly, are not being done cither in consequence of a pledge given to the Canadians, or to any pledge given to the farmers of England, which we were at first led to suppose was the case. They have been put in this Bill in consequence of a recommendation made by the Committee over which my right hon. Friend presided, which looked into causes of the late outbreak, and suggested methods by which further outbreaks might be prevented. Now we come to the position that we are freed from the idea that these restrictions are
the result of a pledge, and we come down to the fact that they are the result of recommendations to the Committee. Unfortunately, the Report of that Committee, I think I am right in saying, is not yet in the hands of Members.

Mr. PRETYMAN: An Interim Report on this point was in the hands of the late Minister of Agriculture some weeks ago. The Final Report has not yet been presented. In order to cover this point, the Interim Report was presented some considerable time ago, and could have been available to Members.

Captain CRAIG: Was it printed?

Mr. PRETYMAN: I do not know what was done with it. We sent it to the Minister.

Captain CRAIG: The fact is, however, that that Report has not yet reached us. I do not object, but what I want to point out is that, so far as we know, although the Irish store cattle trade is of very large dimensions, representing, as I said the other day, from £35,000,000 to £45,000,000 a year from Ireland, so far as I am aware there was no representative of Ireland on the Committee, and, so far as I am able to gather, no evidence was taken on that Committee from Ireland. I can quite concede to England the right to look after her own interests in this matter of trying to prevent foot-and-mouth disease, but I do say that when you take into consideration the immense value of the cattle which come over to this country every year, it would have been well, at least, if there had been some representative from the Irish cattle owners on the Committee, and if they had taken some evidence from people interested in that trade; but, so far as I have been able to gather that was not done. I am not at all inclined to find fault with the right hon. Gentleman and his Committee, but I would like to say, having studied very carefully the recommendations of that Committee, particularly this recommendation of a week's detention for Irish cattle if they fail to be sold immediately on landing, I cannot see why the detention of one week would have any effect in preventing the spread of foot-and-mouth disease. I cannot see why, even if the time of detention were trebled or even still more extended, it would have that effect in a case like the serious outbreak
which occurred last year, and for this reason. When Irish cattle come into this country under the conditions which exist at the present moment, and which are proposed to be standardised by this Bill, if they fail to be sold in the first market to which they go, they have to be detained for six days, after which they are free cattle, and can be taken from one market to another for sale.
It must be obvious to everybody that after six days, and from that time onwards, there must every day be an enormous quantity of cattle being released from detention. If we take it that 5,000 cattle a day come over from Ireland to this country, and 1,000 are unsold in the first market, and are, therefore, detained for six days, at the end of that time these 1,000 cattle are free to wander over the country. They come into contact, we will say, with an infected animal, and possibly this is not discovered in time to stop them being moved from one market to other markets. I cannot see why the fact that they have undergone six days' detention before is any safeguard whatever. Regrettable and deplorable as it may be, these Irish cattle must wander about the country to a certain extent. We all admit that if it could be managed, the ideal condition of affairs would be that they should be brought straight to a market and sold directly, but that is impossible of attainment, because the Irish dealer has no means of knowing the exact demand next day, or next week, and often finds a certain number of his cattle unsold at the end of the first market to which he brings them. I do hope that that state of affairs, while it can never completely be done away with, may be improved, by organisation amongst buyers on this side of the water and sellers on the other side of the water, and the two agricultural Departments on either side of the water.
I think it most desirable that some means should be found to regulate the supply of these animals as nearly as possible in answer to the demand for them on this side. But it is impossible that that should ever be done absolutely, and, so long as it is not done, it is obvious that animals from Ireland unsold must be moved about the markets until they are sold. It is really a very serious
hardship to Irish store-cattle dealers, and, as I say, I do not believe the proposals in the Bill will do the slightest good. As, however, I believe the Government are going to meet us to some extent in this matter, I do not want to bother the Committee with any further remarks of mine, until I have heard the proposals which, I understand, the Government are going to put forward for our acceptance, and I trust those proposals will be so satisfactory that I shall not have to trouble the Committee with any further remarks. Therefore I shall be glad if the right hon. Gentleman can let us know now whether he has been able to meet us, and, if so, to what extent, in this matter.

Sir R. SANDERS: I am quite aware of the difficulty which has arisen in Ireland over this question. I think, perhaps, that the best thing I can do is to state now in what way we may possibly be able to meet hon. Members from the opposite side without doing anything to prejudice those conditions which we have put into this Bill for safeguarding ourselves against such an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease as occurred last year. I think the best way to meet the views of the right hon. Gentleman would be by an Amendment to Clause 9. It may, perhaps, be for the convenience of the Committee, if I am in order, to suggest the following Amendment to Clause 9– in Sub-section (2) of the Clause to leave out the words: "may by Order alter or modify any of the said provisions if he considers it necessary or expedient so to do, and the alterations or modifications are such as in his opinion will not diminish or prejudice the protection against the risk of the spread of disease which is accorded by the said provisions as enacted in the said Schedule, provided that no such alteration or modification shall "
and to insert instead thereof the words:
If he considers it necessary or expedient so to do may—
(a)by an Order to which the last preceding Section shall apply"—
that is Clause 8, which provides that the draft of Orders shall be laid before Parliament—
revoke, suspend, or alter any of these provisions of the said Schedule 3, or
(b)by an Order to which the said Section 6hall not apply make any alterations of or modifications in the said provision if these alterations or modifications are such as, in his
opinion, do not diminish or prejudice the protection against the risk of the spread of disease which is afforded by the said provisions as enacted by the said Schedule and are not such as will"—
Then follow the words in the Bill, "reduce the period of detention prescribed by such provisions." It has been suggested that if these Amendments be introduced into Clause 9, it will meet the point so far as we can possibly meet the point put forward by hon. Members.

Mr. PRETYMAN: What is the effect of the proposed Amendment?

Sir R. SANDERS: The effect of it is that by an Order laid on the. Table of both Houses in the way suggested, the Minister of Agriculture shall have power to modify to the extent indicated.

Captain CRAIG: So that it gives power to the Minister to modify and do away altogether with the six days?

Sir R. SANDERS: Yes, Sir. The Order will lie on the Table for a month.

Captain CRAIG: There is just one point which I do not quite understand from the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman. Probably it was my fault, but I could not follow the exact position at which the Sub-section of Clause 9 is left at the end. Do I understand that it reads at the end:
Provided that no such alteration or modification shall reduce the period of detention prescribed by such provisions.

Do I understand that these latter words are now cut out?

Sir R. SANDERS: No.

Captain CRAIG: How, then, does the provision permit the right hon. Gentleman to do away with the period of detention?

Sir D. HOGG: The effect is this: "Under Clause 9 as it stands now the Minister of Agriculture has power to modify the provisions of the Schedule so long as they do not diminish or prejudice the protection against the risk of the spread of disease, with an express proviso that no such alteration or modification shall reduce the period of detention prescribed by these provisions. The alteration suggested is this: that the Minister shall have power to do what he is at present given power to do under
Clause 9, that is to say, make alterations that do not alter the period of detention and which do not diminish the risk of disease by an order made by himself under the provisions of that Sub-section. He is going to be given, if the Amendment be inserted, an additional power to alter the provisions of the Schedule in any respect provided that such alteration is to be laid on the Table of the Houses of Parliament and can be objected to by either House, and shall not take effect until 21 days after each House has had the opportunity to object to it.

Mr. CAUTLEY: Why have a Schedule at all?

Sir D. HOGG: The answer is that the Schedule has other provisions which are at the moment contained in the Importation of Animals Order, 1922, to protect us against the risk of the spread of foot-and-mouth disease. Having the Schedule in the Bill will have this result: that, unless both Houses of Parliament acquiesce, there can be no alteration in those provisions at all except such minor alterations as do not alter material safeguards. If you do not have an Amendment then you cannot touch the Schedule, however desirable it may be to do so, except by a fresh Act of Parliament. This new Amendment is that you should not have the power to touch the Schedule in any material respect until the Order which proposes to do it has been laid on the Table of the Houses of Parliament, and has remained there 21 days for either House to object to. This is a very valuable protection, because, as the Committee will see, there can be no alteration of it until both Houses of Parliament have had the opportunity of considering whether it is desirable to make it. Therefore it is a very valuable protection. At any rate, we do to some extent meet the objection of Northern Ireland, and also of the Irish Free State people, because we have got now power to make an alteration if neither House of Parliament objects. Under the Bill, as originally drawn, there is no power to alter except by a fresh Act of Parliament.

Captain CRAIG: On a point of Order. Would it be possible for me to withdraw my Amendment to which we are now addressing ourselves, and to move to postpone Clause 3 and other Clauses to enable us to proceed with this proposed Amendment at once and get it disposed of?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It would be possible to do so, but I do not at the moment see any necessity for it, I think we had better proceed straight ahead.

Captain CRAIG: In any case, after the speeches of the right hon. Gentlemen, I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Sir DOUGLAS NEWTON: I am not quite clear, from the explanation made, whether it would be possible to issue an Order which would discriminate as between Irish stores and stores imported from Canada. I gather such discrimination would be possible? [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] That has not been made perfectly clear. I should like to point out that whatever the value of Irish store cattle may be—and it has been admittedly very great, as was pointed out by the hon. Gentleman who spoke a little while ago—the value of English store cattle is infinitely greater. This Clause has been put in to prevent the spread of disease. The Committee, to which allusion has been made, so ably presided over by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford, and of which I had the honour to be a member, went very fully into this matter. We were able to satisfy ourselves that the spread of the disease had been brought about because of the absence of Regulations in this direction. There is not only the spread of disease, but the humanitarian aspect of this question. To rush cattle about which have just been brought to market is not good for the cattle, and it is not desirable from many points of view. Personally I hope that no alteration will be made in the proposals which are submitted to this House. I desire to oppose the Amendment.

Mr. REID: I want to ask the Attorney-General to explain the power given by this proposed Amendment to alter the Schedule. Surely it can only be altered by the Minister when he thinks it desirable so to do? In regard to the importation of cattle, Ireland might be absolutely free from disease and Canada might be suffering from it. What, under the Regulations, will happen to Irish cattle under the circumstances?

Captain ELLIOT: I apologise to the Committee and regret I have been out of the Chamber for some time, while this matter has been discussed. I under-
stand, however, we are discussing a Subsection of the Bill, but cannot we have a general discussion on the point at which we now are? It seems to me we are discussing the Schedule itself. It appears to be raised at this point.

The CHAIRMAN: Not having heard the argument, and only having just come in, all I can say at the moment is that we are discussing an Amendment to Clause 3 to insert the words "or Northern Ireland," I understand that the Attorney-General or the Minister of Agriculture proposes an Amendment to Clause 9, to come on subsequently. There is nothing to prevent a general discussion on the position of Ireland arising on that Amendment.

Lord ROBERT CECIL: If we discuss the general position now, will we in any way restrict or preclude discussion on the particular Amendment which the right hon. Gentlemen have indicated, and which it is proposed to move when we reach Clause 9? May I suggest, that the proposed Amendment goes much further than the Amendment we are now on? It makes a much larger alteration in the Bill. Would it not be rather inconvenient to discuss the bearing of the later Amendment on the present Amendment?

The CHAIRMAN: I take it that it will be a more convenient course to adopt to get rid of this Amendment, as suggested by hon. Members from Ireland, and then take a discussion on the merits of the case when we come to a decision on the proposed Amendment to Clause 9. I think it would be better to come to a decision on the Amendment now before the House without prejudice to the discussion which will take place later.

8.0 P.M.

Mr. REID: As I understand it, the Amendment of my right hon. Friend deals only with the question of Northern Ireland, while the suggested Amendment of the Attorney-General is a general Amendment applicable to all cattle, and on that Amendment I understand we could not raise our special case. If that is so, we want to state our case now, but if the Attorney-General has suggested a special provision for Ireland by his Amendment that would alter the case. I would like to know if special provision could be made for Irish cattle under the Attorney-General's Amendment.

Mr. CAUTLEY: I want to call attention to the words contained in Clause 3, which reads:
except to such extent as the Minister may by Order direct, the provisions of the Third Schedule to the principal Act shall not apply to animals brought to Great Britain from Ireland or any part thereof.

Mr. PRETYMAN: I think the difference in principle between the two Amendments is considerable. The principle underlying the Amendment before the House is one differentiating between cattle imported from Ireland and cattle imported from Canada. The Amendment suggested by the Attorney-General is one to modify the general treatment of the Bill with regard to imported cattle from any source, including both Canada and Ireland. I had it in mind that probably my right hon. Friend who moved this Amendment moved it as an alternative to the other if lie cannot get what he wants. If he got the general Amendment proposed by the Attorney - General, which covers Ireland as well as Canada, I understand that the right hon. Gentleman will be satisfied.

Mr. REID: No, that is not so.

Mr. PRETYMAN: Then is the Amendment to be withdrawn?

Mr. REID: No.

Mr. PRETYMAN: I do not know what view is taken now on this point. The justification of my right hon. Friend's Amendment was that there might be disease in Canada or Ireland, but the question raised on this Amendment is not one of the introduction of disease, but the spreading of it owing to the particular character of the trade carried on in regard to imported cattle into this country. The animals may come here perfectly free of disease, but if they are allowed to be distributed without restrictions the disease may be carried like fire from one end of the country to the other, and therefore the question whether they were diseased on arrival does not make any difference.

Mr. REID: Our position is that my right hon. Friend moved this Amendment and we understood the Government were going to meet us with regard to the specific case of Ireland. For that reason my right hon. Friend who moved this Amendment spoke rather briefly, and then the Attorney-General intervened. The Amendment, however, which the Attorney-
General has suggested is not anything like the concession we require, and the result is that our Amendment stands, and we want to have an opportunity of making out our case. If the Amendment is withdrawn and the discussion takes place on the Attorney-General's new Clause, I am afraid it will not be possible to make out our special case. Under these circumstances unless the Attorney-General has some further explanation I should like to speak upon the Amendment which has been moved by my right hon. Friend.

The CHAIRMAN: If hon. Members do not wish this Amendment to be withdrawn it is clear that I cannot rule out a general discussion upon it. We cannot, however, have two discussions on the same subject. If the subject is discussed fully on this Amendment, I could not allow anything like a prolonged discussion on Clause 9, although separate questions raised in that Cause may be discussed. It would be in order to allow a discussion of the present proposal and the Amendment suggested by the Attorney-General together, but that discussion cannot be renewed on Clause 9.

Mr. FALCONER: I should like to ask whether, under the suggested Amendment to Clause 9, it would be possible by an Order of both Houses to discriminate between Canadian and Irish cattle, and make an Order applying specially to Irish cattle, although that Order might not apply to Canadian cattle. The question to be debated is whether all the provisions and restrictions which apply to Canadian cattle are also to apply to Irish cattle. I understand, if an Order under Clause 9 is passed by both Houses, it will apply to all cattle either Canadian, Irish, or any other cattle.

Sir D. HOGG: The Amendment which we suggest to be made in Clause 9 would not enable the Ministry to discriminate between Irish and Canadian cattle. The reason why we are not able to bring forward an Amendment to that effect is because there was an express arrangement with the Canadians made by the late Government under which it was expressly arranged that whatever provisions on this side apply to Canadian cattle should apply equally to Irish cattle. What those arrangements were to be they did not specify, and all they said was that they should be the same
for both countries. Therefore I cannot move an Amendment which will enable us to discriminate: I can only move an Amendment, so far as Canada is concerned, which will enable us to modify the Schedule if both Houses wish it.
We cannot make such a modification without the consent of both Houses, because otherwise there would be no real protection in the Schedule of the British agricultural interests which we are bound to protect, and which it is far more important to this House to protect and safeguard than any other interest. Therefore we cannot go further than the Amendment which the Minister of Agriculture has outlined. If that Amendment does not afford any satisfaction to my hon. Friends from Northern Ireland, there will be no object in moving it, and we must discuss the matter on their Amendment. The reason we brought it forward was that we were anxious to do all we could to meet their wishes, and we cannot go further because we are bound by the pledge I have indicated to the House. When the right, hon. Gentleman (Captain Craig) pointed out that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman) had said that the provisions in the Schedule were due to his Committee, and not to the Canadian Government, there was a slight misapprehension in his mind. It is quite true that what is in the Schedule is in accordance with the recommendations of the right hon. Gentleman's Committee, but the fact that the Schedule has to apply equally to Ireland and Canada does not depend upon the right hon. Gentleman's Committee, but upon the bargain made with Canada.

Captain CRAIG: I consider that the suggested Amendment which the Government have placed before us is a very unsatisfactory proposal. I was under the impression the Government were going to meet us to the extent of saying that, whereas they were going to make this six days' detention statutory, they were going to reserve to the Minister of Agriculture power to modify or do away with that by the process of an Order in Council to lie on the Table of both Houses. Will he be able to deal with the question of the six days' detention of Irish cattle alone without dealing at the same time with detention of Canadian cattle?
Under the proposed Amendment of the Attorney-General, I understand that cannot be done.
We have been told, and I think it is for the first time, that there has been a pledge given to the Canadians that their cattle and ours shall be treated on the same basis. If' that is so, I say that the last Government had no right to give any such pledge without consulting Ireland. This deals with one of the most important trades in Ireland, and it has been dealt with without the matter being even mentioned to us, and I say that is a monstrous thing. Hon. Members opposite, I am sure, will support us when they remember that our cattle have been coming into this country absolutely free for 30 years—except during two or three years when foot-and-mouth disease has been prevalent—to the great advantage of buyers in this country. It must be obvious to everyone that the detention which is to be imposed upon our cattle is bound to have the effect of raising the price of meat. I ask hon. Members opposite whether they are going to stand that simply because it is necessary, according to the late Government's ideas, to put the Irish cattle trade on the same footing as the Canadian trade. I wish to point out to the Committee that for a long time during these Debates the other day we were arguing this question because we were told that these detention Regulations were being imposed in response to a recommendation of the Committee presided over by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford.

Mr. PRETYMAN: That is quite correct.

Captain CRAIG: But the Government say it is because of a pledge given to the Canadian Government.

Mr. PRETYMAN: The restrictions were put on upon the recommendation of the Foot-and-Mouth Disease Committee. The only point where Canada comes in is that if these restrictions are adopted, they have to cover all kinds of imported cattle. Therefore, I am right in saying that the imposition of these restrictions has nothing to do with the agreement with the Canadian Government, which only comes in when the restrictions are imposed, and then they must cover all the ground. That is necessary because it is the character of the trade with imported
cattle, wherever they come from that necessitates these restrictions, and that necessity is equal whether the cattle come from Ireland or Canada.

Captain CRAIG: However important it is to put on these restrictions, Ireland has to suffer considerable restrictions, which, except for short periods and at times of stress, have never been applied to Ireland before. I ask hon. Members in all parts of the Committee to bear in mind that this is to be done, on the one hand, because Ireland is to be brought into line with Canada, and, on the other hand, because provisions of this kind are deemed to be necessary by an English Committee which was set up to inquire into the cause of the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease and the best methods of preventing it spreading. As I have already pointed out, that Committee was composed entirely of Englishmen and Scotsmen. There were no Irishmen on it. No Irish evidence was taken. I believe that will not be denied. Is it fair, is it dealing justly with the Irish cattle trade, that such a momentous decision as this should have been come to by the Government without consulting us, without even as much as asking one of our witnesses to come before this Committee, and without telling us, in the first instance, when it was announced that the Canadian Embargo Bill was to be introduced, that any such provisions as this were to be put into it—provisions so vitally affecting the Irish cattle industry?

Mr. PRETYMAN: They are in force now.

Captain CRAIG: That may be so. But for 28 out the last 30 years they have not been enforced, and the time may come when the Regulations will not be necessary, because there is no foot-and-mouth disease in the country. Indeed in six months' time England may be declared to be absolutely free from foot-and-mouth disease, and then I claim we are entitled to have free entry for our cattle into this country. These outbreaks are brought about by causes entirely beyond our control; they are inevitable, and no number of restrictions such as those imposed in this Bill will have the slightest effect in checking them. Whatever length of detention you put on these cattle, as soon as that detention is over there is bound to be a large
cattle circulating in the country which may do exactly what has been done recently by carrying the disease from one market all over the country. These restrictions it will be found are entirely illusory. They will not have the effect which it is hoped they will have, and at the same time they will put the Irish cattle trade to great inconvenience and expense, while doing something towards raising the price of meat for the poorer classes in this country. My disappointment is very great. I understood most clearly—of course I do not blame the Minister of Agriculture—that the Government was going to meet us on this point. There is nothing outrageous in simply asking that we shall be put in the position in which we have been for 30 years, and if the Board of Agriculture is of opinion that the country is free from foot-and-mouth disease it should allow Irish cattle to circulate quite freely. That is the position we are in at the present time, and it is not asking too much to be allowed to continue on the same footing. I regret very much the Government do not see their way to meet us. I understood that, when this matter was being discussed with the Canadian representatives over here, it was plainly stated by the Canadians that they did not want any interference with the present system of dealing with Irish cattle. I believe the matter was thoroughly threshed out with the Canadians and that they expressed their desire not to interfere in the slightest degree with the Irish trade. All they asked for was leave to send their cattle over here under such reasonable restrictions as the Board of Agriculture might deem fit to impose. Seeing that no evidence was taken from Ireland and that there was no Irish representative on the Committee over which the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman) presided, and bearing in mind the great loss and inconvenience which will undoubtedly be inflicted on this important trade to Ireland, I hope this Committee will support us in our endeavours to get these objectionable provisions removed from the Bill.

Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: I am little less surprised and disappointed than hon. Gentlemen opposite at what has just taken place. Accustomed, as I am, to the manner in which Ireland has been treated since I have been in this House, I say
this is the most astonishing case I have known in my long experience, of the unfair treatment of Ireland. Some of my hon. Friends above the Gangway seemed rattier to resent the observations of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Captain Craig) when he suggested that the case of Canada did not necessarily imply the case of Ireland. Let me tell the Committee why it does not. The Irish cattle trade is just as important to Ireland as the Canadian cattle trade is to Canada. The Government, when they came to deal with Canada, adopted the right course. They had long consultations and long negotiations with the Canadian Government, and the agreement come to between that Government and the home Government was one to which the Canadian Government and the Canadian people were parties. That was quite right as regards Canada. When they came to the case of England, when the right hon. Member for Chelmsford came to deal with the cattle trade from the point of view of England, there was an English Committee set up, English authorities were consulted, and English witnesses were called and allowed to give evidence on the subject. But when it came to the case of Ireland it has transpired—and it has not been denied by anyone—that whilst Canada was consulted, while England was consulted, not a man connected with Ireland was consulted. Opinion in the North of Ireland was not consulted, neither was that in the South of Ireland. On this question North and South Ireland are as one. The cattle trade is equally as important to the South as it is to the North: indeed, it may be a little more important in the South because of the greater area covered, but whether it be North or South there is a Government in each part— there has been a Government in the North of Ireland for some time and a Provisional Government in the South has now been established on a more or less fixed basis—neither Government was consulted. What is the excuse given to that by the Attorney-General? I never heard such an excuse. It dumbfounded me. It was this: "We are going to deal on certain lines with Ireland because, without consulting Ireland, we promised these conditions to Canada." I wonder what anyone would say in the House of Commons if the Secretary of State for the Colonies were to get up
and say, "We are bound to apply such-and-such conditions to Canada because of an agreement which, without consulting Canada, we have made with Ireland." I never heard a more preposterous proposition in my life. I know that my right hon. Friend has a considerable command of his facial expression, but how he can, without any exhibition of shame, make the proposition, "We cannot do certain justice to Ireland because we are pledged to do justice to Canade," without having the natural ruby of his cheeks become still more ruby, shows how quickly a man can learn the worst arts of the Treasury Bench.
What is the necessity for this provision at all? I understood from my right hon. Friends opposite, and I am sure they spoke in perfectly good faith, that the Government had been willing to meet us in this case. Let me explain to the Committee what is the real point at issue. If there be disease in Ireland, the Government have full powers by administration to exclude Irish cattle. I believe they are excluding them at this moment. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] So much the better if they are not, because it shows that Ireland has a perfect bill of health. If the Government have any reason whatsoever to suspect cattle disease in Ireland, they are armed, without, this Bill at all, with all the powers of administration to prevent the entrance of Irish cattle into England. None of us object to that. England has a perfect right to protect herself against diseased cattle from Ireland, or Canada, or any other part of the world, and if the law were to be left as it was, namely, that this was a matter of administration against Irish cattle when disease was proved, or even suspected, none of us would raise the least objection. But what does the Bill do? It transforms this right, this omnipotent right, to exclude Irish cattle, from a matter of administration to a matter of Statute. That is the essential distinction. Whereas the Government are perfectly free to admit Irish cattle into England and to save them this detention of six days—whereas they have a right to do this by administration when occasion arises, they now tie their hands by Statute, so that what has come to be an administrative act, called for by temporary circumstances, becomes a permanent act imposed upon the Government.
I do not think that that is fair. But the grossest unfairness of the whole thing is that Canada is consulted about Ireland, England is consulted about Ireland, Scotland is consulted about Ireland—and the one country that is not consulted about Ireland is Ireland herself. I am perfectly sure that I have only to appeal to their sense of fair play for every Member to join with my hon. Friends and myself in the contention that this is a grossly unfair way of dealing with Ireland.
Now I come to the provision itself. Why do we object to this provision? It may seem at first eight to be a very simple, a very easy, and, really, an almost trifling thing to insist that our Irish cattle shall be detained for six days. Says my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford, who, of course, is one of the greatest agricultural authorities in the House, and has always been the spokesman of the agricultural interest in the House, as long as I remember—even in the days when he was denouncing land taxes as revolutionary, and other hon. Gentlemen were stating that they were absolutely necessary for salvation from slums and other things—my right hon. Friend insists, in the interest of the Irish cattle trade, that there shall be this six days' detention. What is the harm? If a man sells his cattle, it is the buyer who has to pay for the six days' detention, and, therefore, there is no grievance on the part of the Irish cattle seller. But suppose that the cattle are not sold. They still must be detained, and they are detained at the expense of the owner of the cattle. I do not profess to know what that would cost, but anybody can see that, if the Irish cattle be not immediately sold, the expense of the six days' detention falls on the cattle seller from Ireland. That is a very heavy burden upon the Irish cattle trade. [Interruption.] I am quite willing to put the case to the judicial mind of my hon. Friend who represents, as a member of a co-operative organisation for which I have a great respect, the point of view of the consumer. I hope he will listen to me while I am trying to put before him the view of the Irish seller. Suppose that the Irish cattle seller comes over to an English market. He has two alternatives. Either he takes the price that is offered to him, or he refuses that price; but, if he refuses the price he is offered, then he is fined by hav-
ing to maintain his cattle during this six days' detention. Would my hon. Friend contend that that is not a great handicap on the Irish cattle seller? Then comes my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford again, and says, "Why should he not sell his cattle?" But is not everyone—and my hon. Friend, as a co-operator, knows this as well as anyone else—is not everyone compelled to take a smaller price if he is compelled to sell in one market, and has not the choice of several markets? Therefore, if the Irish cattle dealer is presented with the alternative of either taking a price immediately or undergoing the expense of six days' detention, then he has to take the first and the best price he can get in the one market, without any opportunity of taking advantage of competing prices in another market.
How does all this arise? Oh, those canny Scotsmen! I never admired their tremendous commercial power and their tremendous Parliamentary agility and skill more than I have during this Debate. Cattle comes from Scotland as well as from Ireland. Are they going to get this six days' detention? Cattle comes from Wales, but, even now, when a brilliant Welshman is no longer head of the Government, Wales is taken care of. They can come from the South of England to the North. Is there any detention then? No. The only cattle in the United Kingdom—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]— well, perhaps I must not say the United Kingdom, but my hon. Friends opposite are better acquainted with the systems of government in Ireland than I am. Of the countries of Great Britain and the Free State and the State of Northern Ireland the only country that is not free from this provision, which discounts the Irish market, is Ireland. Do you suppose you dare do that with Wales? Are we to dare to do it with Scotland? Are we to dare to do it with the South of England? Why, if you did it with the South of England, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford would bring against the Government all the resources of copious and always agreeable eloquence with which he has delighted the House of Commons for all the years I have known him. But poor Ireland is to be treated thus harshly. I join my hon. Friends in their opposition to what I consider to be a most unfair, most irrational, and, I might almost say, shameful transaction
by the Government behind the back of Ireland. I give them this final word. If I were a machiavellian Irish politician, I would encourage the Government to go on with a system of injuring the North of Ireland and the South of Ireland with equal impartiality, of neglecting and ignoring the opinion of the North of Ireland and the opinion of the South of Ireland with equal impartiality. I would encourage the Government to go on. It will probably do more to bring North and South Ireland together than anything that could be devised.

Mr. REID: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Prety-man) on Thursday said these Regulations were not directed against Irish cattle. He pointed out that in England cattle were taken to a market and sold. They were then taken to the premises of the purchaser and that was the end of the transaction. If the facts were as he made out, there might be something to be said for detention, but I have since been making inquiries. It is notorious that cattle dealers do not all come from Ireland. There are cattle dealers in England who take cattle from one market to another. The right hon. Gentleman said he did not charge Irish cattle with bringing disease from Ireland into England, but he said Irish cattle moved from one market to another and therefore, having been perhaps in contact with disease in one market, they carried it to another. We know now what is the fact, that there are English cattle which are taken to market, and if they have not been sold are taken to another market. I suppose English cattle are equally able to disseminate disease where they have been in contact with it as Irish cattle are. Given these facts, what would any Committee that had to examine this question do? If it is unsafe to move a beast from a market without some form of detention, obviously that system ought to be applied to all cattle taken to market. The logical result of the right hon. Gentleman's own principles is that every beast, English, Irish, Scotch, Canadian or anything else, which have happened to be taken to a market in England or in Scotland ought to be detained for a period before it is allowed to go to another market. On his own statement it is absolutely unfair that this restriction should be imposed on Irish cattle and not also be imposed on
English, Scotch and Welsh cattle, and we say it is unfair and prejudicial to the Irish cattle trade and also to the English consumer to impose these restrictions.
Apart altogether from the usefulness or otherwise of these restrictions, we in the North of Ireland have a special case of our own. Whatever may be said of the South, we are not a Dominion. We are still part of the United Kingdom, and in this matter in a very peculiar way we are a very closely connected part of the United Kingdom because, under the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, the administration of the Acts relating to the diseases of animals was to pass to the Council of Ireland. Owing to various circumstances the Council of Ireland has not been set up, and under the Bill which we passed the week before last the powers of the Council of Ireland relating to diseases of animals are vested in the British Government. So the right hon. Gentleman on this bench not only has power, if he sees any reason, to stop or to place restrictions on the removal of cattle from Ireland, but can place restrictions on them in England and in the North of Ireland and can administer the same restrictions there. He has got control of the matter at both ends Under these circumstances it is exceedingly unfair that an attempt should he made to make the Regulations statutory. We admit at once that the British Government is entitled to protect its herds against diseases coming from outside, but we say there is no reason why these Regulations should be made statutory. The right hon. Gentleman is able now, under the statutory powers he has, to vary the Regulations from time to time as required. For a period of about 27 years Irish cattle came into England without any restrictions at all. There was no disease. There was no need for restriction. Then there were some cases of disease and restrictions were imposed. Some of those restrictions remain now. Supposing there is a further period of freedom from disease, restrictions can again be removed, and that is all to the advantage of the Irish seller and the English buyer. These restrictions only hamper trade and make it more expensive. They tend to increase the price to the consumer, and, as I understand the object of admitting Canadian cattle is to reduce the price of stores, it looks rather as if the Canadian principle was to put restrictions on Irish cattle so as to raise
the price of Irish stores and afford them a better market. It looks as if the Canadians were not satisfied with their case. If the British Government is going to deal with the Dominions in the way it has begun to deal with Ireland, we shall break up the Empire in a very short space. Supposing the Prime Minister of Australia came to the Colonial Office and attempted to negotiate something with the Colonial Secretary. Supposing the Secretary of State said, "I cannot deal with you because I promised Canada I would not," what would happen? Does anyone suggest that any other part of the Empire would be dealt with in that way?
Most of the arguments we can adduce refer also to Ireland as a whole. Have the Government any idea what kind of effect this sort of thing has on their general Irish policy? They have set up in Ireland two Governments. I presume they hope those Governments will be a success, but have they ever thought what was the kind of objection which has been brought against the British Government by Irish opinion in the past? What has always been said in Ireland is, "You give a thing with one hand and take it away with another." We have two Governments set up in Ireland, one fiscally independent and the other having power to levy certain taxes of its own. The cattle trade is the most important part of the Irish agricultural industry, and agriculture is the greatest industry in Ireland. The Free State must depend for its revenue upon taxes raised from an agricultural population, which must, to a large extent, be based on the prosperity of the cattle trade. In these circumstances, the Government comes along, after having set up the Free State, and presents this Bill. Do they really suppose that that kind of thing is going to lead to peace and quietness? Do they think that it is wise to set up the Free State one day and then try to cut its financial feet beneath it the next day, before it has got well started? I presume that the Government has set up the Free State because they hope that it will succeed. I suppose they expect to get some benefit from the policy, even if it proves a failure. They want to be able to take away from the hyphenated Irish in the United States the cry that Ireland never was fairly treated. They want to be able to say, even if the Free State is a failure: "We gave them
everything they asked for, we gave them the widest powers they could possibly desire, and they made a mess of it. Therefore, it is not our fault." If you destroy the Irish cattle trade, where is your Irish-American orator then? You give him a new topic.
The Government never seem to take the trouble to cast their minds back. You read in the books on Free Trade that the death blow was given to the Corn Laws by the Irish famine, while you read in books on Irish economics a different view. A very important book has been published recently—Mr. O'Brien's "Economic History of Ireland from the Union to the Famine"—and there it is pointed out that when Free Trade was introduced it was really a great blow to Irish agriculture. Up to that time there had been really Free Trade between England and Ireland. Ireland grew great quantities of wheat, and supplied a great deal of the wheat required in England. Free Trade came, and that side of Irish agriculture was destroyed. Irish agriculture has reconstituted itself on the basis of the cattle trade, and even if you are prepared to grant freedom to the South of Ireland you are not prepared to allow them to enjoy that trade without necessary restrictions. You are putting into the power of the Irish-American orators, of the type the Government are trying to conciliate, the argument: "You destroyed the woollen trade of the 18th century, you destroyed the corn trade in the 19th century, and you destroyed the cattle trade in the 20th century, and yet you expect us to approve your policy." The Minister of Agriculture may not think that these are very important considerations, but they are things which weigh with the Irish people. The people in Ireland are very touchy at the present time, and the best thing is to let them alone. This is a purely gratuitous intervention. The Minister has all the powers he needs. He can regulate the trade as he wishes without raising any further question, and yet he throws out this bone of contention at a time like this.

Sir J. SIMON: The argument which is presented by the hon. Member who has just sat down is an argument which impresses some of us very much. I am well aware that the only wise judgment on a matter of this sort can be arrived at with great knowledge of the details
of this trade and the special circumstances which govern it, and I do not profess to have such knowledge. Therefore, I should be acting very recklessly if I declared myself on the side of the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken. Many of us take a close interest in this question, which is in no sense a party question. Speaking merely as an outsider on this subject, there are two or three considerations which impress some of us, and seem to call for a fresh answer. It is perfectly clear that up to the present the importation of cattle from Ireland to this country has been subject to Regulations which, as far as I know, the Minister of Agriculture has been able effectively to apply. Therefore, if these Regulations are to be superseded by something new, the burden of proving that it is necessary lies upon those who propose to apply the new Regulations.
A second consideration that occurs to me is this. Admittedly, this Bill is introduced, after a free vote in the House, for the purpose of implementing a promise that there should be a removal of the embargo on Canadian cattle. The very language of the Bill is sufficient to show, in its first Clause, that that is its object. It does seem a rather curious consequence of meeting the demand that | the embargo on Canadian cattle should be removed, that it should be necessary in the Bill to make changes as regards cattle coming from Ireland. It may be so, but it is clearly a case where the burden of proof lies upon those who assert it. The point raised by the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. O'Connor) is one about which those of us who are interested in Irish self-government are very much concerned. The southern part of Ireland is a Dominion of the Crown. I could understand the argument that, if you are going to put a form of regulation on the Dominion of Canada you may be justified in putting a similar form of regulation upon the Dominion of Southern Ireland, but if that is the argument it is, at any rate, desirable to make it quite plain that the Dominion of Southern Ireland has been consulted in the matter in exactly the same way as the Dominion of Canada.
As regards hon. Members who are speaking from the point of view of
Northern Ireland, they cannot be met with that argument. I understand them to say that, so far as Northern Ireland is concerned, which is still to be regarded as within the home territory in every sense, there is nothing that has happened in connection with the removal of the embargo on Canadian cattle which would seem in itself to justify a change of the law so far as Northern Ireland is concerned. I may be repeating the platitudes of the controversy, and I do not profess to be able to pronounce a judgment, but as an impartial person these are arguments which impress one, and I do not appreciate as fully as I would like before I vote on this Amendment what is the strength of the argument the other way. I heard the speech made by the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman) the other day, a most persuasive and powerful speech, and I have re-read it since, but in spite of that, the right hon. Geitleman will excuse me for saying that I still feel that an answer must be given which meets fully the case made by hon. Members on the other side.

Sir MALCOLM MACNAGHTEN: Our arguments cannot be answered. The Committee will not be surprised if people in Ireland whose livelihood depends on this trade regard this Measure of the Government as a deliberate attempt on the part of the British Government to ruin the Irish cattle trade. I represent a constituency which, if it is not the largest agricultural constituency in the kingdom, is certainly one of the largest. Not only is it a large agricultural constituency, but it includes the City of Londonderry, which is a great shipping port for the cattle from the county of Londonderry and from the county of Donegal. My constituency is largely dependent on the continuance of the cattle trade with England and Scotland, and unless they can be persuaded that there are cogent reasons for changing the law as it exists to-day, they will be convinced, and, I submit, rightly convinced, that the effect of this Measure is to injure Ireland, even though injury to Ireland be not intended, for the benefit of Canada.
We do not dispute that if there is any necessity for this Bill for the protection of Great Britain's flocks and herds, then, whatever injury it does to us, we must put up with it. We agree that the safety of the flocks and herds of Great Britain
is a matter that this Committee must regard as of primary importance, while our interest in Ireland are of secondary importance. But our main objection to this Bill is that we are brought within the restrictions in the Schedule, and that those are made statutory. Under the existing law, the Minister of Agriculture has power to make those restrictions whenever he thinks fit, and, in fact, these restrictions, which are contained in the Schedule, are in force to-day. In those circumstances there can be no need to change the law for the purpose of protecting flocks and herds in Great Britain to-day. The only reason put forward for the change, as I understand the observations of the Attorney-General, is that a Committee, on which we were not consulted, has recommended that these restrictions should be made permanent, and a pledge has been given to Canada that whatever restrictions are imposed on Canadian cattle shall also be imposed on Irish cattle. When this matter was debated in the last Parliament, and a resolution for the removal of the Canadian embargo was passed, no suggestion was ever made that the provisions with regard to Irish cattle should be changed. But it is said that a pledge has been given to Canada that whatever restrictions are imposed upon Canadian cattle shall also be imposed upon Irish cattle. I find it extremely difficult to believe that any such pledge could have been given.
9.0 P.M.
I think that if the Prime Minister were here to-night—he has had wide experience in these matters—he would say that one of the cardinal principles underlying the British Empire is, that a self-governing Dominion should not attempt to interfere in any way in the domestic affairs of any other part of the Empire. The Committee will recollect that, whenever the statesmen from Overseas come to this country, they are most careful never to concern themselves with any domestic or political question of ours, and they would resent, and rightly resent, anybody from this country interfering in any domestic or political question of theirs. I find it, therefore, extremely difficult to believe that any Canadian Minister ever ventured to ask for any pledge or stipulation with regard to the terms on which the cattle trade should be conducted between Ireland and Great Britain. We
have not been told the name of the Canadian Minister who, it is suggested, asked for such a pledge, or the name of the British Minister who gave such a pledge. If such a pledge was asked for and was given, it is the first time in the history of the British Empire in which a self-governing Dominion has ventured to interfere in the affairs of any other part of the Empire.
The economic result of this proposal, I believe, is going to be the placing of an unnecessary fetter on the cattle trade between Ireland and Great Britain, with the result that the very consequences which you desire to attain, namely, cheapening the supply of meat in this country, will not be attained, but that, on the contrary, if you hamper the Irish cattle trade, you are going to raise instead of lower the price of meat in this country. That will be the necessary economic result. The political result is going to be, that this House of Commons, immediately after the Free State has been set up and when this House was, as it thought, free of Irish troubles, deliberately did a thing which was designed to injure, if not to ruin, the Irish cattle trade.

Mr. PRETYMAN: I cannot help thinking that the Committee might arrive at some satisfactory conclusion on this matter. It is very unfortunate that the interests of agriculture should be opposed to the interests of goodwill between England and Ireland Speaking from the point of view of agriculture, in the county of which I am a Member, we feel that we should be sacrificing the interests of English agriculture if we agreed to the restrictions not being made statutory. We are assuming in this restriction that every animal which could import the disease has been kept out of the country altogether, and that the animals coming from any part of the British Empire are all free from disease. This restriction is aimed simply against spreading disease, not owing to particular danger attaching to the particular animal, but to the character of the trade in imported animals.
I admit the force of the argument put forward in an eloquent speech by the hon. Member for Down (Mr. Reid), that if you carry the thing to its logical conclusion you must say that every animal, whether British or imported, which is taken from
one market to another should be detained for six days. But the Committee must see that this is a question of degree, and that to make such a Regulation as is suggested would make trade absolutely impossible. What the Cattle Diseases Committee had to consider was how they could succeed in eliminating what was a great risk by putting a comparatively small restriction on trade. To carry the idea to its extreme conclusion would be to put a very heavy restriction on trade in order to deal with what would be a comparatively small risk. What we have recommended, and what the Government have adopted, is a scheme to stop the spread of large numbers of animals from one market. When the animals first arrive in this country they go by hundreds to one market. In a case that was under special consideration there were 539 animals, all Irish, which went to Gateshead market. Information was obtained that disease was suspected in Newcastle. Those 539 animals had been spread through all the markets which I enumerated earlier to-day, and the disease was spread like a fire all over England.

Captain CRAIG: I would ask, Would the position not have been exactly the same, and quite as bad from the point of view of spreading disease, if this six days' detention had been in force at that time?

Mr. PRETYMAN: That is a most reasonable question, and the answer is, most certainly not. The animals which had gone to that market for exposure would have had to stay for six days, either on the premises to which they had been sold, probably farm premises, and there the disease could easily have been circumscribed, or they would have had to stay in the neighbourhood of Newcastle or Gateshead market, and the disease would have developed in much less than six days and could have been confined to that particular area. That is the whole case.

Captain CRAIG: No.

Mr. PRETYMAN: Surely my right hon. Friend sees that if by some unfortunate chance there happens to be in a market an infected animal which can convey the virus to other animals, and before that is known these other animals,
to the number of perhaps hundreds, are distributed, not to farm premises where the disease can be restrained, but to other markets where it spreads on to hundreds more, there may be outbreaks all over the country. I have stated the result of our most careful investigation. We believe that it would be greatly to the interest of British agriculture and of the Exchequer that that provision (which was originally 14 days and has now been reduced to six days) should be made statutory. If I wanted to give a reason why it should remain statutory, I should say that the reason is furnished by my hon. Friends from Ireland, for they would evidently move Heaven and earth to get the restrictions removed. The Ministry and its officials should not be subject to perpetual political pressure to get them to alter Regulations which are permanently necessary.
The question now raised is a very important question, I admit. It has been argued very forcibly and very temperately by hon. Gentlemen from Ireland. They think that their trade is to be affected seriously. I do not think so. They have admitted that in so far as animals which are sold in the market are concerned, it will make no difference. The animals which are not sold in the market, as has been said, would have to be detained for six days at the expense of the vendor or of the Irish owner or cattle dealer. Hon. Members must look at the alternative. Let me say why six days was the period selected. It was that it would then be possible, without further expense of transport, to expose chose animals for sale at the next market in the same place. Markets are always held on the same day of the week, and with six days' detention another railway journey would not be necessary. If, on the other hand, there is no six days' detention, the person concerned does not go scot free of expense, for he has to entrain the animals to another market, and that would often cost more than to keep them in the one place for the six days. There is also the considerable power which all trades have of adapting themselves to conditions. If the Irish traders were to accept this as necessary for avoiding the spread of disease—disease causes restriction to their trade and is of the greatest injury to them—they would see that it is as much in their interest as in the interest of anybody else. We are all in one busi-
ness. This is all part of the great cattle trade of what used to be the United Kingdom. We do not desire to discriminate against Ireland in any way. We claim that we are advancing Irish interests as well as our own in trying to prevent the spread of this most mischievous disease.

Mr. O'CONNOR: Why do you not do it in Wales and Scotland and the South of England?

Mr. PRETYMAN: It is a matter of degree. When animals come from the South of England they do not come in great mobs of hundreds. That is a peculiar characteristic of the imported cattle trade. When you have hundreds of animals from one vessel they are all in the hands of one dealer, and come together. It is the characteristic of the trade; the cattle come in large cargoes and come to one market first, and then they are distributed to other markets all over England. If the trade would adapt itself to the conditions and would endeavour to regulate the trade so that there would be sent to one market no more than would be required in that market, the difficulty would be largely met. If those engaged in the cattle trade would loyally accept this principle as a sound one it would be better, but if Irish dealers and those who represent Northern Ireland and Southern Ireland want to make this an international matter, and regard this as a matter of vital importance, and the Government thinks it is a matter of vital importance, where do we find ourselves? Are hon. Members satisfied with the change for which they have asked—that, instead of this being a statutory restriction, which can be altered only by Act of Parliament, it should be in the power of the Ministry to vary it if he thinks it right and proper so to do? It is for that they have asked.

Captain CRAIG: So far as Irish cattle alone are concerned, but not Canadian cattle.

Mr. PRETYMAN: Surely my right hon. Friend would not suggest that it would be any detriment to him or to Ireland. If he wants liberty given to the Minister for Irish cattle, is it any the worse because that liberty also covers Canadian cattle?

Captain CRAIG: That is not the point at all. The point is this—we know that if Canadian cattle were included, we
might never hope to see the restrictions removed, because the Minister of Agriculture would not be justified in allowing Canadian cattle into this country without detention, whereas he would be fully justified in allowing ours in.

Mr. PRETYMAN: I should like to go a very long way to meet my hon. Friends, but I certainly could not go as far as that. I cannot see on what that argument is founded, because the character of the trade in imported cattle is exactly the same whether the cattle come from Ireland or from Canada, and there is just the same danger in both cases. I am assuming that the cattle both from, Ireland and from Canada come into this country absolutely free from disease, but when they do come into this country they are taken in large numbers to markets by dealers and that involves the same danger of spreading disease, whether they come from Ireland or from Canada. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Antrim (Captain Craig) asks that Irish cattle should be exempted from this restriction, if the Minister thinks it right to do so at some future time. If it be safe and right to deal with cattle on that system because they come from Ireland, it would be equally right to deal with cattle from Canada on the same system. I traverse that argument of the hon. and gallant Member.
I do not think it fair to raise the suggestion that in asking for the agreement which they did ask for and obtain, the Canadian Government has interfered between England and Ireland. All they have asked for is most favoured nation treatment. They have not said, "We want you to put restrictions on Ireland." They have only said, "You must not put restrictions on our cattle alone; you must-put them on imported cattle wherever they come from, or if you take these restrictions off all other cattle, you must take them off Canadian cattle also." That docs not seem to be an unreasonable attitude. However, it is a matter between Canada and the Government and therefore it is outside my orbit, because I am dealing with the question as between British agriculture and Ireland. If it is going to produce peace on this question and avoid bad feeling between England and Ireland, I believe the statesmanlike course for British agriculture to take up would be to agree to give the Minister
power to vary the restrictions. We would rather see Ireland satisfied on this matter than stand out for the difference between that course and a statutory enactment, although we strongly prefer the statutory enactment and we should be making a great sacrifice in relaxing it. If it would satisfy Irish feeling and bring Ireland into line, I would ask my hon. Friends who represent agriculture in this House to agree to that, but I do not know if they would all agree.

Sir F. BANBURY: No.

Mr. PRETYMAN: I suppose they would not all agree, but I would advise them to make the concession if it is to produce peace with Ireland. I understand now that it would not do so, and we may be saved from having to take up that position. I think the House desires some settlement of this question, and I hope we can be assured by my right hon. Friend the Minister that when other matters in which agriculture is concerned come up, we also shall get consideration, I, personally, think if Ireland were satisfied with the offer of the Government to give the Minister power to vary these restrictions, should it appear safe to do so at some future time, and that power were to apply both to Canada and to Ireland, and if that would avoid ill-feeling between England and Ireland, it would be a better solution than adhering to the statutory enactment. Much and greatly as I prefer the statutory enactment, if it would create real trouble between England and Ireland I believe the other alternative to be a statesmanlike solution.

Mr. ALEXANDER: I desire to raise one or two points on the case presented to the Committee by hon. Members from Ireland. First I wish to reply to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Londonderry (Sir M. Macnaghten) that in this matter, for the first time, a self-governing Dominion of the Empire had interfered in British domestic politics. I have taken the greatest care to ascertain the position, and I am convinced that the Government of the Dominion of Canada never attempted to do anything of the kind. When the vote was taken in this House, which decided to remove the embargo placed upon Canadian cattle for nearly 30 years—felt by many of us in this country to be unfair—all Canada asked for was that if administrative pro-
posals were to be made, these proposals should not place upon Canada any restriction other than those placed upon other parts of the Empire exporting cattle to Great Britain. In point of fact, they desired to have their cattle admitted to this country on exactly the same grounds and the same lines as those on which Irish cattle have been admitted for 30 years. From that point of view the Canadian Government never attempted to interfere with domestic legislation here. They made the perfectly reasonable request that their cattle should be admitted on the same terms as the Irish cattle, and in spite of what has been said during the Debates on the Second Reading and to-day, I remind hon. Members from Ireland that the bill of health of the Canadian herds is comparable with that of the herds of Ireland and the comparison is even in favour of the Canadian cattle. After 30 years of an unfair embargo they are surely not asking too much.
The hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. O'Connor) referred particularly to the position of the consumer. There was one point made in the Second Beading Debate with regard to the consumer which needs to be emphasised in view of the very able statement of the right hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman). Hon. Members from Ireland tell us that the detention period will mean an increase in the cost to the consumer by hampering the trade in cattle. Those who are connected with a great consumers' and agricultural movement like the co-operative movement, know there are two sides to that. In the last 12 months I have had to deal with many claims in connection with this matter. In the first place, we had to provide out of the taxpayers' money, which is ultimately a charge on the consumer, £1,000,000 in order to stamp out the recent outbreak of disease. Not only so, but in regard to particular claims we have had to make advances on behalf of co-operative societies farming their own land, who were ordered to isolate their cattle and in the course of the isolation treatment lost the cattle. There had to be paid, not merely taxation for stamping out the disease, but also an actual dead capital loss on cattle, and every penny of that is ultimately a charge to the consumer. I said in the Second
Reading Debate, and I repeat it now, that if you take the total cost, there is no comparison between the ultimate cost to the consumer with regard to this formality of a detention period, and the ultimate cost of stamping out outbreaks of disease and providing for losses through isolation or slaughter.
That is not quite the end of the question. We look at this matter entirely from the consumer's point of view, and we say that he has the first right to be consulted. We admit the argument of the Irish Members that ultimately there might be a slightly enhanced cost to the consumer—[HON. MEMBERS: "NO."]— after this period of detention. We say that, that would not be as large an enhanced cost as would be the cost of stamping out outbreaks that might be saved by such a precautionary measure. We want the Minister of Agriculture to consider this point, that when there is no disease in the country these unnecessary restrictions should be removed at once. We urge that they should be removed simultaneously, not only from the trade in Irish store cattle, but from that in Canadian store cattle. We want the best possible quality of store beasts in this country, whether they come from Ireland or from Canada. We want them fattened as quickly as possible, and put before the consumer in the cheapest possible way. We suggest that the attitude taken up by the hon. Members representing Irish constituencies is not the best way of securing these things for the consumer at the present moment. I hope, therefore, that the Committee will vote against this Amendment.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir WILLIAM ALLEN: We are entitled to ask what is the origin of the Debate this evening. We shall find it in the Resolution proposed in this House in July last, with reference to the embargo on Canadian cattle. The Resolution was proposed by Mr. William Shaw, who was then the hon. Member for Forfar. It is well that the Committee should realise what that Resolution was, and how it comes about that we are now debating the question of the introduction of a Measure dealing with the embargo on Canadian cattle, with reference to Ireland. This is the Resolution, as adopted by the House in July:
That this House is of opinion that the time has arrived when the embargo on the
importation of Canadian cattle should be removed.
We are now debating the question whether we should have six days' detention with regard to Irish cattle. How has this come about? It seems to me that some very extraordinary work has taken place in order that we might have this Debate to-night. It appears that a hurried agricultural meeting, representing the people of England and Scotland, was got together and that some evidence was taken with regard to this question. In the meetings between the representatives of Canada and this country, and, I suppose, in the Cabinet, there was some discussion with regard to Ireland. That is very evident from what the right hon. and learned Attorney-General has told us. I think, however, we have a right to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the Minister of Agriculture whether, at any time, there was any communication between either Northern Ireland or Southern Ireland, or the Board of Agriculture connected with the one or the other, and the meeting that was proceeding between Canada and this country?
So far, it has not come out in this Committee that such a communication took place. I am informed that there was such a communication. I am informed that representatives of the Irish Board of Agriculture were in this country at that time, and that they offered to give any evidence that was necessary or to take part in the discussion that was necessary, if the matter was at all of interest to Ireland. What was the reply? I am open to contradiction or correction by the right hon. Gentleman, if he has any information on the subject. I understand the reply was that Ireland was not in the discussion at all, that the matter purely affected the relations between Canada and this country; and that if it affected Ireland, a communication will be sent immediately to the Board of Agriculture in Ireland. That is all that passed, so far as I understand. The Board of Agriculture in Ireland was not communicated with. Therefore, naturally, that Board took it for granted that the question of Irish cattle did not come under consideration at all. Which is right? Is it the right hon. and learned Attorney-General, who says an understanding was arrived at between Canada and this country with regard to Irish cattle; or are the repre-
sentatives of the Board of Agriculture in Ireland correct, when they say they were distinctly told from that meeting that the question of Ireland was not going to be discussed, was not introduced, and would not be without consulting Ireland? That is a very important point, which has not yet been met. We are entitled to know what is the meaning of it.
I want to know why we have not got the Interim Report of the Committee presided over by the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman). That is not the fault of that right hon. Gentleman or of this Committee. He has given the Committee to understand that this Interim Report has been in the hands of the Board of Agriculture for some weeks. Why have we not got it to-night? Was it to prevent us knowing that this Clause with regard to Ireland was to be introduced in a surreptitious way, or what was the reason? These are questions that the Committee should clearly understand, because it is a very extraordinary thing. The Committee will agree that until this Bill was introduced neither Northern nor Southern Ireland, nor the representatives of Ireland in this House, understood that Ireland was to be dealt with at all. Yet this Interim Report was in the hands of the Government. Why did not the Government tell us? The hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) put the case very fairly and moderately. I think the Committee has a right to be very dissatisfied with the whole transaction. We are constantly being kept in the dark.
I should like to deal with the position taken up by the right hon. Member for Chelmsford. It is quite possible, during this Debate, an impression may have been left on the Committee that the disease which spread last year all over the country, and which cost about £1,000,000 of money, came from Irish cattle. I think my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford made it very clear in his speech the other day that that was not so.

Mr. PRETYMAN: Hear, hear.

Sir W. ALLEN: And I am impressed with that part of his argument when he says:
I hope that my hon. Friends will not imagine that if it in any way interferes
with their trade, we do not regret it, but it is necessary to protect our flocks, and herds in this country."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th December, 1922; col. 2091, Vol. 159.]
Twice in the course of his speech on that occasion he said that, and I think he reiterated it to-night. May J point out that he also said:
The outbreak was spread entirely, as stated in our Report, by the herds of Irish cattle which were distributed from Newcastle and Gateshead markets. Not one of these cattle introduced the disease into this country. They came into this country free from it. They went to the markets and picked up the disease there, and spread it from one end of the country to the other."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th December, 1922; col. 2087, Vol. 159.]
I think it is only right that we should follow that argument to its logical conclusion. The disease did not come from Irish cattle. Where, then, did it come from? I think the only conclusion that we can come to is that it must have come from cattle from other parts of the Kingdom, from Scotland, or Wales, or Southern England, but the right hon. Member for Chelmsford does not carry his argument to its logical conclusion and impose the detention on the very cattle that might have carried this disease which was spread. That is a point which we ought to insist that the Committee should examine very thoroughly. It is quite possible that that disease may have come from cattle which were sent from Norfolk, and, if so, why not follow it to its logical conclusion and put the six days' detention on other parts of the British Isles as well as Ireland? You make this distinction with regard to Irish cattle only, and, of course, Canadian cattle, but you do not make it with regard to Scotch cattle, or Welsh cattle, or South of England cattle—the very places from which this disease must have come.
I am very sorry that the Prime Minister is not here. I think this is a matter of very great importance and very high policy. I am sorry he has not been here in order to hear the arguments in regard to my country and the way in which it has been treated under this Bill. Not long ago he sent a message to Ireland on the passage of the Free State Bill, a message, I suppose, of encouragement, wishing them prosperity, and the very next action of this British Government is to do Ireland a most serious and lasting economic injury. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I hold that it will injure the
Irish cattle trade. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] That is my opinion. My opinion is that it will injure the Irish cattle trade to a very serious extent, and I think that is the last thing the Prime Minister or this Government ought to have done in the circumstances which now prevail in Ireland. I am sorry that the Government have taken this opportunity without consultation with Ireland, an opportunity that will prolong the awful differences that have existed up to the present between the two countries. I cannot help feeling sorry to-night that Englishmen should confer together to bring this additional wrong, which I hold it is. on Ireland, and I hope that before this discussion closes, the Ministers who are responsible for this Bill will take some action which, instead of alienating Ireland still further, will draw her more closely to this country

Sir R. SANDERS: In spite of all that has been said, it is not the fact that this Bill is imposing conditions on Ireland which it is not imposing on Canada. The reverse is the case. A great deal has been said about the conference between the Canadian representatives and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman). What happened there was that arrangements were being made that Canada should have the same treatment as already existed in the case of Ireland. The treatment would be just the same in the case of Ireland if Canada had never existed. One would infer from the speeches to-night that Canada had been made an excuse for putting these particular restrictions on Ireland. There is not a Canadian beast coming in now except those slaughtered at the ports, and restrictions are enforced at the present moment, and have been enforced for some time. They are restrictions which our veterinary advisers advise us are necessary, and that advice has been confirmed by the Committee presided over by they right hon. Member for Chelmsford. They are restrictions that we are advised are the necessary minimum for the safety off our herds in this country.
Such a lot has been said as if these were some extraordinary restrictions, some extraordinary oppression, inflicted by the greater country upon poor, oppressed Ireland. It is nothing of the sort. There is no embargo. I think one hon. Member talked of an embargo, but there is no embargo whatever. There is no quarantine
even. All that happens is, that if cattle exposed in a market are not sold, for six I days they are not allowed to be moved to another market, because in investigating the causes of the bad foot-and-mouth disease outbreak last year, it was found that the chief cause of the wide distribution of that outbreak was not that Irish cattle brought the disease into the country, but that they were hurried about from market to market, that they picked up the disease at one market, and that they spread it broadcast all over the country. It has been said by the speakers from the North of Ireland that the English and Scotch cattle do the same. The information that I have is that that is not so, but if we find that it is so, then our remedy is to apply restrictions to the English and Scotch cattle, and surely we might be allowed to do that at our own time and in at our own way, and maintain a little home rule for England in the matter.

Sir W. ALLEN: Why not make that statutory for England?

Sir R. SANDERS: It may come to that. I do not say, but I do not think we need consult Ireland before we do it. All the restriction is that for six days, it not sold, these cattle are kept in detention. If they are sold at once it is no injury to anyone, and there cannot be any loss of any sort. The only possible restriction of commerce or trade comes if the cattle are not sold in the first market. We have been told two or three times over that that adds so much to the cost of the cattle. I cannot see it. I should have thought that it would have the very opposite effect. If a man knows that, unless he sells his cattle at a particular price in the market to which they go, he will have to be put to a certain amount of inconvenience, he is more likely to take a lower offer for them, and not to stand out for a higher one. It puts an end to that lengthy process of dealing which, although I do not know whether it occurs in the selling of Irish cattle, does occur in respect of that of which I have had certain experience, namely, the selling of Irish horses. There is one more grievance. Although this restriction has existed for some time, it is considered to be a grievance that it should be put into a Bill and made statutory. I must say that the experience I have had in the last ten days impresses upon me very forcibly the need of this being put into an Act of Parlia-
ment, and it not being made easy to repeal. If my hon. Friends and right hon. Friends had come to me and threatened or abused me, or held a pistol at my head, I should have known how to deal with them, but they have been kindness, they have been amiability itself. Nothing could have been kinder or more courteous than all the representations that have been made to me on this subject by the representatives of Ireland. I am a soft-hearted man, and I do not reckon on my own strength of mind to be able indefinitely to withstand all these blandishments. I find it very hard to resist them, and I may have successors who are even more soft-hearted than I am myself, and those interested, the great cattle breeders of England, do not want to be left at the mercy of a soft-hearted Minister of Agriculture. That is the reason why we want to make these restrictions statutory.
I thought I was making a big concession by my offer to the right hon. Gentleman. I am sorry that there was any misunderstanding about it. After the consultations I have had, I have been exceedingly surprised to find that the point to which the right hon. Gentleman attached so much importance was that differentiation should be made between Canada and Ireland. On that point, I submit we are pledged. The Canadians have asked us to treat them in the same way that we have treated Ireland. We put on them restrictions that exist on Irish cattle now, and I really do not see in what way my Friends from Ireland would be injured by the fact that if at any time after they had laid the Order on the Tables of the two Houses, a Minister who took off those restrictions from Ireland should take them off from Canada as well. I cannot see where the injury to Ireland comes in. However, hon. Members do not wish to accept that position, and I shall allow the Bill to stand as it is. As we have discussed this question pretty fully, I would suggest that the Committee should now come to a decision.

Mr. McCONNELL: I owe this Committee no apology for rising to-night, even at this late hour, and at this last moment of this important Debate. But after listening to the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, and the kindly nothings
that he has offered to Ireland, I must certainly say that I thought, when we came into this House this afternoon, and we were told by some of our hon. Friends that the Government were going to give us a very substantial offer, we were going to have something. But when I heard what he has offered us to-night, that he is giving us the same terms as Canada, I do not think the most optimistic man in this House to-night would say that you would get anything like the number of store cattle from Canada in any one year that have come from Ireland. Of the 1,006,011 cattle sent over here from Ireland, not one has been detained from 31st October, 1921, to 31st October, 1922, because it has been found to be suffering from foot-and-mouth disease. What do I find has happened in England since 19001 Between 1900 and 1912, 2,200 foot-and-mouth disease cases have happened in England. In Ireland we have not had one solitary case detected. What do we find from 1912 to 1920 in England? 1,079 cases of foot-and-mouth disease. What do we find in 1919? 3,463 cattle slaughtered. In 1920, 11,373 cattle slaughtered. In 1921, 3,085 cattle slaughtered. In 1922, the present year, 55,238 cattle slaughtered, and my right hon. Friend admits that not one solitary case of foot-and-mouth disease emanated from Irish cattle. Yet we are told that we are to be put under the same rule and Regulations as Canada, 3,000 miles away.
What is the difference between Cumberland and, say, Edinburgh, and County Antrim and Edinburgh? What do we find at the Hallow Fare, in Edinburgh, on the 13th, 14th and 15th of November last? I can give the right hon. Gentleman the name of one dealer who comes from Cumberland, and he had 1,000 cattle belonging to himself at that particular fair. Yet he speaks of our dealers coming across in great numbers. That particular gentleman did not sell all his cattle at the Hallow Fair, but they were taken to Perth and Stirling, and I can give a number of cases where you have dealers constantly selling cattle in England. In the North of England you have 22 dealers constantly taking their cattle from the North of England to Scotland. Where do your milch cattle come from that are in Edinburgh every Monday morning? From Cumberland, Westmorland and the North of England generally. Why is not
the six days' detention put into force on the border between England and Scotland; if it has to in relation to the cattle that come with a two-hours' passage from Larne to Stranraer and then are taken by Drain to Newcastle-on-Tyne and other quarters for sale? Why is not the same treatment to be meted out to the store cattle from England to Scotland and the cattle that come from Scotland to England?
My hon. Friend has asked two very important questions, and I would ask for replies to those questions and will be interested to know—and the Committee will be, too, I think—what was the end of the correspondence that took place between his Department and the Irish Department in October and November. We are entitled to know, because I do not think it is right and fair that Ireland should be put into a position in which she is in. Our Department offered to give the English Department every information they might require, and we were told in November that "this Bill will not apply and will have nothing whatever to do with Irish cattle and your presence will not be required." Was that fair? Was that honest? Are we to be treated honestly? We do not want anything but

fair play. We can stand, thank God, on our own legs and are prepared to do it. We are not frightened of the Canadian cattle. We can meet them. The House can rest assured that we can meet and beat the Canadian dealers in any market of England or Scotland; we can compete against them at any time. What we do want is fair play, not to be snuffed out as we have been by the English Government in this particular case. What does Clause 66 of the Diseases of Animals Act, 1894, say?
In order to secure uniformity of action every Order-in-Council and every Order of the Board of Agriculture made under this Section shall … be communicated to the Board of Agriculture or the Lord-Lieutenant or the Privy Council, as the case may be.
Nothing of the kind has been done in this case! We offered to give every facility. We offered to appear before them. The reply was: "You are not required, because this Bill will not apply to Irish cattle." I do sincerely trust that this Committee will look upon this in a fair and equitable manner and give us that to which we are fairly entitled—justice!

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 21; Noes, 333.

Division No. 29.]
AYES.
[10.0 p.m.


Brown, J. w. (Middlesbrough, E.)
M alone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
Ritson, J.


Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)
Mathew, C. J.
Sexton, James


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz
Shakespeare, G. H.


Gretton, Colonel John
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Simpson, J. Hope


Hayday, Arthur
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Whitla, Sir William


Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
O'Connor, Thomas P.



Lorimer, H. D.
O'Grady, Captain James
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Held, D. D. (County Down)
Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. Allen and




Mr. McConnell.


NOES.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Burney, Com. (Middx., Uxbridge)


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynts
Bird, Sir W. B. M. (Chichester)
Burnie, Major J. (Bootle)


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Blundell, F. N.
Butt, Sir Alfred


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton, East)
Bonwick, A,
Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)


Alexander, Col. M. (Southwark)
Bowdler, W. A.
Cairns, John


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Campion, Lieut.-Colonel w. R.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Cassels, J. D.


Ammon, Charles George
Brass, Captain W.
Cautley, Henry Strother


Astbury, Lieut.-Com, Frederick W.
Brassey, Sir Leonard
Cecil, Rt. Hon. sir Evelyn (Aston)


Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Broad, F. A.
Chapple, W. A.


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Brotherton, J.
Churchman. Sir Arthur


Banks. Mitchell
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Clarke, Sir E. C.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Ahertillery)
Bruford, R.
Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender


Barlow, Rt, Hon. Sir Montague
Bruton. Sir James
Cobb, Sir Cyril


Barnes, A.
Buchanan, G.
Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Buckingham, Sir H.
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips


Batey, Joseph
Buckle, J.
Collison, Levi


Becker, Harry
Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Cope, Major William


Berry, Sir George
Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)
Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)


Crook, C. W. (East Ham, North)
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Ponsonby, Arthur


Crooke, J. S. (Derltend)
Hood, Sir Joseph
Potts, John S.


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Hopkins, John W. W.
Pretyman, Rt. Hon, Ernest G.


Darbishire, C. W.
Houfton, John Plowright
Price, E. G.


Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)
Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)
Pringie, W. M. R.


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Hudson, Capt. A.
Privett, F. J.


Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
Hume, G. H.
Raine, W.


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Rankin, Captain James Stuart


Dixon, C. H. (Rutland)
Hurd, Percy A.
Rawson Lieut.-Com. A. C.


Doyle, N. Grattan
Hurst, Lt.-Col. Gerald Berkeley
Reynolds, W. G. W.


Duncan, C.
Hutchison, W. (Kelvingrove)
Rhodes, Lieut.-Col. J. p.


Dunnico, H.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Richards, R.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)


Edwards, C (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Jarrett, G. W. S.
Riley, Ben


Elvedon, Viscount
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)


Emlyn-Jones, J. E. (Dorset, N.)
Jephcott, A. R.
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Entwistle, Major C. F.
Jodrell, Sir Neville Paul
Roberts, Rt. Hon. Sir S. (Ecclesall)


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Johnson, Sir L. (Waithamstow, E.)
Robertson, J. D. (Islington, W.)


Erskine-Bolst, Captain C.
Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)
Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Evans, Capt. H. Arthur (Leicester, E.)
Jones. Morgan (Caerphilly)
Robinson, W. C. (York, Elland)


Evans, Ernest (Cardigan)
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Rogerson, Capt. J, E.


Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.
Jowltt, W. A. (The Hartlepools)
Rothschild, Lionel de


Falcon, Captain Michael
Kenyan, Barnet
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Falconer, J.
King, Capt. Henry Douglas
Royce, William Stapieton


Fermor-Hesketh, Major T.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Ruggles-Brise. Major E.


Flanagan, W. H.
Kirkwood, D.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Foot, Isaac
Lamb, J. Q.
Russell, William (Bolton)


Ford, Patrick Johnston
Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R.
Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney


Forestler-Walker, L.
Lansbury, George
Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)


Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)
Saklatvala, S.


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Lawson, John James
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Furness, G. J.
Lee, F.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Galbraith, J. F. W.
Linfield, F. C.
Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.


Ganzoni, Sir John
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Sanderson, Sir Frank B.


Garland, C. S.
Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Sandon, Lord


Gates, Percy
Lorden, John William
Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)


Gaunt, Roar-Admiral Sir Guy R-
Lort-Williams, J.
Shepperson, E. W.


George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)
Lowth, T.
Shinwell, Emanuel


Goff, Sir R. Park
Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Lunn, William
Sinclair, Sir A.


Gray, Frank (Oxford)
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Sitch, Charles H.


Gray, Harold (Cambridge)
McLaren, Andrew
Skelton, A. N.


Greenall, T.
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Smith, T. (Pontefract)


Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)
Maddocks, Henry
Snell, Harry


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furness)


Grenfell, D, R. (Giamorgan)
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Sparkes, K. W.


Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Margesson, H. D. R.
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Mason, Lieut.-Col. C. K.
Spencer, H. H. (Bradford, S.)


Grigg, Sir Edward
Mercer, Colonel H.
Steel, Major S. Strang


Groves, T.
Middleton. G.
Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.


Grundy, T. W.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Stewart, Gershom (Wirral)


Guthrie, Thomas Maule
Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Gwynne, Rupert S.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Molson, Major John Elsdale
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)
Morris, Harold
Sugden. Sir Wilfrid H.


Halstead, Major D.
Morrison, Hugh (Wilts, Salisbury)
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Hamilton, Sir George C. (Altrincham)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)


Hancock, John George
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honlton)
Thomson, Luke (Sunderland)


Harbord, Arthur
Muir, John W.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Harney, E. A.
Murchison, C. K.



Harrison, F. C.
Murnin, H.
Thornton, M.


Harvey, Major S. E.
Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western)
Tryon, Rt. Hon, George Clement


Hawke, John Anthony
Nail, Major Joseph
Tubbs, S. W.


Hay, Captain J. P. (Cat heart)
Newson, Sir Percy Wilson
Turton, Edmund Russborough


Hay, Major T. w. (Norfolk, South)
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. p.


Hemmerde, E. G.
Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)
Wallace, Captain E.


Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)


Henderson, Sir T. (Roxburgh)
Oliver, George Harold
Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)


Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Waring, Major Walter


Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Paget, T G.
Warne, G. H.


Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford!
Paling, W.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne)


Herriotts, J.
Parker, Owen (Kettering)
Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington)


Hewett, Sir J. P.
Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry
Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.


Hill, A.
Pattinson, s. (Horncastle)
Weir, L. M.


Hillary, A. E.
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike
Wells. S. R.


Hinds, John
Pennefather. De Fonblanque
Welsh, J. C.


Hirst, G. H
Penny, Frederick George
Weston, Colonel John Wakefield


Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Westwood, J.


Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Wheatley. J.


Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Perring, William George
Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.


Hogge, James Myles
Phillpson, H. H.
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)


Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy
Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray
White, Lt.-Col. G. D. (Southport)




Whiteley, W.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Wignall, James
Windsor, Viscount
Worsfold, T. Cato


Williams, David (Swansea, E.)
Wintringham, Margaret
Yerburgh, R. D. T.


Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Wise, Frederick
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Wolmer, Viscount



Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Edward F. L. (Ripon)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Colonel Gibbs and Major Barnston

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 4.—(Power of Minister to authorise conditionally importation of animals from other British Dominions.)

The Minister may, notwithstanding anything in the principal Act, by Order authorise animals from any British Dominion other than, the Dominion of Canada to be landed in Great Britain without being subject to the provisions of Part I of the Third Schedule to, the principal Act, if the animals are landed in accordance with such conditions, to be prescribed in the Order and not being less stringent than those applicable in the case of Canadian animals, as may, in the opinion of the Milliliter, lie necessary or expedient for preventing the introduction of disease into Great Britain:

Provided that the Minister shall not be required to include among the conditions aforesaid a provision requiring that he shall be satisfied that the vessel in which the animals are brought to Great Britain did not during the voyage enter any port or place outside Great Britain.

Mr. H. SIMPSON: I beg to move at the end of the Clause to insert the words
Provided also that the animals are not landed from the vessel at any port or place outside Great Britain during the voyage.
I hope that this Amendment will be accepted by the Government. It is clear it is no good preventing a vessel calling at foreign ports if you are not going to prevent animals going ashore. The object of the Clause is to do away with any possibility of contamination on the voyage between the original port of departure and the port of arrival. The reason for the Clause is so obvious that I need say nothing more.

Sir D. HOGG: I am afraid I cannot accept this Amendment, because, in the view of the Government, it is wholly unnecessary. The object of the Amendment is to insert an express prohibition against the landing of any animals from any Dominion at any port on their way from the Dominions to this country. It is quite inconceivable, in the first place, that any Minister would put into any
Order a provision that animals should land at an infectious place on the way, and, secondly, if any such provision were inserted then inasmuch as under Clause 8 an Order has to be submitted to both Houses and to lie on the Table for 21 days before it takes effect, it is quite inconceivable that either House will approve it. One could put in provisos of what Ministers shall not do almost ad infinitum, but I say it is unnecessary to put in the Clause any prohibition of the Minister doing a thing which he is not likely to have any intention of doing.

Mr. SIMPSON: My Amendment is not to prevent the Minister allowing the animals to land, but to prevent the people in charge of the animals doing so.

Sir D. HOGG: I am afraid I have not made my point clear. Clause 4 provides that the Minister may by Order authorise animals from any British Dominion, other than Canada to be landed in Great Britain without being immediately slaughtered, provided that conditions are imposed which are to be prescribed in an Order which he shall make. The point I was making to the Committee was that it is quite impossible to suppose either that a Minister would issue or that either House would accept an Order which would allow animals landed en route from, say, either South Africa or Australia. It is not what the people in charge of the animals may do, but the point is that the Minister would not permit such a landing of animals coming to this country.

Mr. SIMPSON: I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Captain ELLIOT: I desire to oppose this Clause. It is pushing the injury that is being done to British agriculture to an unparalleled extent to drag in a subject like this on a Bill such as we have now before us. In addition to everything else we have the declaration of the Minister
here a few moments ago, and every word of his speech is in favour of the view which I am now expressing. He begged and prayed the Committee to protect him from the pressure of people who would wish alterations to be made in these restrictions, and he went on to say that the experience of the last ten days had shown that these restrictions as to the movement of cattle into Great Britain should be satutory and not administrative. Those were his own words; and now, only five minutes after, the Committee are asked to sweep away a great portion of the statutory defence of this country and to replace it by an administrative Order. The Minister said that he himself might have been able to stand against this pressure, but his successors might be more soft-hearted.
If we sweep away these restrictions of the Act of 1894, what happens? The learned Attorney-General has just used an argument with which we are familiar. He said, "We have no intention of doing it. The Minister does not want to do it, the other place does not want to do it, and we in the House of Commons do not want to do it." Then why is permission asked to do it? We have become in the House of Commons very suspicious when the Government come down and ask for permission to do something, on the ground that they have no intention whatever of carrying out the powers given to them. We know by experience that there is generally, as our friends across the water say, a nigger in the wood-pile in that case, and that, when the Government ask for permission to do something, it is with the object of carrying into effect the powers they have got. When, therefore, we find the Minister saying, as he said just now, that he does not want to do certain things, and that the Houses of Parliament do not wish to do certain things, I think we may say to ourselves that that is a very good reason why they should not have permission to do those things.
We are being asked here to do a thing which has never been broached in any of the discussions on this subject. We are being asked to authorise the importation of live cattle from countries other than Canada or Ireland. We have had a long discussion on the Canadian cattle embargo, and some of us opposed it, while
others voted in favour of it; but there was never any question raised of the admission of live cattle from other parts of the world, and especially not from tropical and sub-tropical parts of the world. The Government stands condemned out of their own mouths. I have here the White Paper which was presented to Parliament as Cmd. 1722, containing extracts from the proceedings of the Conference last year and a memorandum on the Report of the Royal Commission. The White Paper quotes paragraphs from page 7 of the Royal Commission's Report, as follows:
Further, the inquiry for nil practical purposes must relate to cattle coming from Canada. It is with regard to Canadian cattle that the question has arisen, and it is to Canadian cattle that the evidence has been directed…no case for exemption from it"—
that is to say, from the prohibition against importation—
has been put forward except on behalf of Canada.
It does not say that no case has been proved, but that no case has been brought forward. And then Ministers come down with this Bill, assuming a case which has not been put forward, let alone proved. The Report goes on to say:
No such claim has, so far, been made except on behalf of Canada, and no such claim seems probable.
I put it to the Committee that we are hound to consider very seriously such a claim on its merits. In the previous Debates the House Government had a very strong case. They sheltered themselves behind the thick walls of the interminable pages of the Blue Book, which I hold in my hand: and they there had proof, if proof could be brought forward by argument, that there was no danger to the flocks and herds of this country in bringing in live cattle from the great Dominion of Canada; but they have not one shred or tittle of evidence in favour of the importation of cattle from any other part of the world The great case that the Minister has made in this Debate is the case of urgency. On the Second Reading he said:
I am quite aware that a Bill of such importance should take a rather longer time than that which can be allotted to it this Session. This is being done to meet the very strongly expressed wishes of the representatives of Canada. This is being done because one of our great Dominions is asking
for it. It is for that reason, and that reason atone, that I am asking the House to consent to a degree of haste which I would join in deprecating on most occasions."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, "7th December, 1922; col. 2057, Vol. 159.]
It seems pushing the Minister's case rather far to bring forward the argument of urgency. The Debate on the Second Heading was stopped at the dinner hour by a more or less Parliamentary bargain, not in any way to obstruct the passage of the Bill, and yet the argument of urgency, because Canada was asking for it, is now maintained to enable the Minister to sweep away the Act of 1894, so far as it concerns, not Canada, but the tropical and sub-tropical countries of South Africa and Australia.
Let us examine the record in regard to disease of those countries. It has been universally admitted that the importation of cattle into this country from tropical countries was highly inadvisable. A very strong case was made by the hon. Member for Market Harborough (Sir K. Fraser), who pointed out that the Bill would permit the importation of cattle, not merely from Canada, on which there had been a Commission, but from South Africa and Australia, on which there had been no Commission. The question was raised before the Royal Commission, but these technical details, which were thrashed out by a technical Commission in the case of Canadian cattle, have not been thrashed out at all in the case of South African and Australian cattle, and therefore these details, which were removed from the purview of the Debate in the House on these other matters, have now to be brought up on the Floor of the House of Commons, and it is very important that the Committee should realise the character of the risk to which it is exposing British flocks and herds by the passage of such a Clause as this. In the evidence on the general question of disease in South Africa, Professor Wallace, in his evidence before the Royal Commission on Imported Store Cattle, said:
There are diseases in South Africa which cannot be determined in that number of weeks. There is coast fever and there is redwater fever, which remains in the blood for years, and there are other diseases which are not yet named that we know of, and to bring those in and quarantine them and
then let them out in the ordinary way would be a great danger to the breeding herds of the country.
Mr. Parker, a veterinary surgeon, who appeared on behalf of the City of New-castle-on-Tyne, asked if it was impossible to bring cattle from South Africa, said:
I should never allow it from what I have seen in South Africa with regard to rinderpest.
I think it is important that we should remember the grave dangers of disease that are paramount in this question. I seconded the Motion against the lifting of the embargo on Canadian cattle on the ground of disease. Whatever may be said with regard to the risk the flocks and herds of this country run in the case of disease from Canada, there can be no question as to the risks they run in the case of cattle from South Africa and Australia. There are other parts of the world. There is India. We know that pressure will immediately be brought upon this House and the Government, and we shall be asked: "Why exclude Indian cattle alone? You have brought in South African cattle and Australian cattle. Why should you not have Indian cattle also?" The same reply will be made by the Attorney-General or the Minister of Agriculture that they have raised on behalf of this Clause. They will say: "We cannot differentiate between one part of the Empire and another. If you bring in cattle from one Dominion you must bring in cattle from another Dominion." This is not a political question. This is a pathological question. There is great danger to agriculture in this country through the mixing up of politics and pathology. If the politicians will devote themselves to politics and the pathologists to investigating problems of disease we may get on faster. When one finds that the Government are making-this change solely because one Dominion might object because another Dominion has received some advantage, it is time for the representatives of British agriculture to make a stand.
We ought to have from the Minister of Agriculture some statement as to what steps he proposes to take to obviate the risk of disease from cattle from tropical and sub-tropical parts of the world. We have, had statements in evidence, and we know Very well from our own knowledge, that there are many of these diseases
which may lie in the blood of stock for months and years. What steps are we going to take to obviate the risks that are run? I will give one example of the financial cost of fighting a disease. The South African Estimates for the year ending 31st March, 1921, provided for a staff of 200 for east coast fever, and for an annual expenditure of £40,000 as a protection against that one disease. What steps does the Minister propose to take in the case of a disease such as that? I sat for nearly a year on a Committee considering the diseases of animals, and we had evidence that there was a loss from these diseases in South Africa alone of several million pounds a year. They are spending enormous sums in that country. They are spending on veterinary education and research, £123,000 a year and other enormous sums in grappling with these diseases, and it seems very ridiculous that we should be asked to run the risk, without any demand from South Africa, of these diseases being introduced in this country.
We know that India is full of disease of one kind or another. Although there is no proposal at the moment to bring cattle here from India, yet we have to remember that the South of Ireland was not a Dominion a year ago and is a, Dominion to-day, and nobody can say, even in these days of tranquillity, what changes may come about in regard to India in 12 months time. The official report says that no claim has been brought forward for the admission of cattle from other parts of the world except Canada, and those who wish to change the law have the onus of showing the reason why this change in the law should be made. There has not been any claim from South Africa, and there is certainly not a claim from this country. I do say that there is no urgency before the House. A matter of this importance should not be rushed through a few days before the end of an Autumn Session, but should be discussed on the Floor of the House in a full-dress Debate, after we have had a technical inquiry into the subject.

Major PAGET: I feel very great diffidence in addressing the House for the first time in support of an Amendment against the Government, but I do feel on this question very strongly. I
had no intention of speaking this Session, but, as an agriculturist who has been brought up with cattle all my life, I say-that this does affect the whole agricultural population very strongly. I feel very much that the Government are putting in this very wide Clause to give power to any Minister, whether he knows anything about agriculture or not, to do anything he likes according to his own opinions. This ideal is going back on the bargain that was made with the agriculturists of this country.
We know that Canada is extremely free from disease. That is so because of the very vigorous winters, through which animals affected with disease cannot live. But in South Africa we have the rinderpest, the red water fever, the red tick fever and other cattle diseases. These diseases attack, not only domestic cattle, but even wild animals which are indigenous to the soil. It is a well-known medical fact that when a new disease is introduced into a country where it has been unknown before it is far more deadly than any disease which has become stable in the country. We have only to take the case of such a harmless disease as measles, which, when it was introduced into the South Sea Islands, destroyed from 10 to 15 per cent, of the population in 18 months. If we are going to run the risk, which we are doing by giving these wide powers, which were never even contemplated when this Bill was introduced, of introducing into this country these tropical and sub-tropical diseases, the House will run the risk of destroying a unique industry, because these diseases are equally dangerous to the horse-breeding and cattle-breeding industry, the export trade in which, in proportion to its size, brings more money into this country than any other industry. Therefore I ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider the position which he has sprung upon the House and to allow this Amendment to go through, or else to give us a strong assurance that he will introduce safeguarding Regulations. It is not that I instruct him personally, but he has himself said on a previous Clause that we have no right to expose a Minister to the appalling pressure that might be brought to bear on him as an individual. Many of us know that pressure is sometimes brought to bear on us by constituents in regard to matters as to which we do not entirely agree. I have, as a certain ex-
Minister has already done, experienced "the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune" on this very subject. We ought to protect not only the House, but the right hon. Gentleman who happens to represent agriculture in this country.

Sir D. HOGG: I make no complaint whatever at cither of my hon. and gallant Friends for bringing up this matter. It is eminently right that it should be brought up; but I am a little sorry that the hon. and gallant Member for Lanark (Captain Elliot) should already have acquired so deep-rooted a suspicion of this Government. I feel that we have not quite deserved it at his hands yet. I think I can somewhat alleviate the quite proper anxiety which has been shown. I can quite positively assure both the hon. and gallant Members that the Minister has no intention of acting on these powers, and that it is a mistake to suppose, as both my hon. Friends seem to suppose, that the effect of this Clause is to give the Minister power, if he chooses, to let cattle or animals in from any Dominions at his own will, and subject to such Regulations as he may see fit to impose. The reason why the Clause is in the Bill is this: We are advised, and we believe it to be the fact, that if we were to pass an Act of Parliament which, in terms, referred only to cattle and animals from the Dominion of Canada, we would at once rouse a very great outburst of indignation and protest from the other Dominions, who would say that they were being unfairly treated in that they were not given any power, however free they might hereafter prove themselves to be from disease, to come in on the same terms as Canada.
Bet, in fact, this Clause does not give the Minister power to do anything at his will. What is to happen is that the Minister, first of all, has to prepare an Order, which by its terms must be at least as stringent as that applicable to Canada, and as may be sufficient necessary or expedient for preventing the introduction of disease into Great Britain—I need hardly say that any Minister would, of course, recognise the extreme importance of keeping out any form of tropical disease or anything of that kind—and when the Minister has drafted the Order, by the express language of Clause 8 that Order has to be submitted to each House of Parliament at a time when the Houses
are sitting, and it has to remain on the Table of each House for 21 days before it can take effect, and if during that time either House objects no further proceedings can be taken on the Order. Every safeguard is provided, not only that the Minister shall not be subject to pressure, but, even if he should prove as frail as my hon. and gallant Friend seems to fear, this House and the other House remain to be satisfied. The only real reason for the introduction of this Clause, quite frankly, is that if we did not have it, we should cause considerable ill-feeling among the other Dominions. If we have it in, no harm is done to anybody, because it does not enable cattle or any animals to come from the other Dominions but gives power to the Minister, with the sanction of both Houses of Parliament, after due deliberation, to allow animals in, on terms which would prevent the possibility of any sort of disease. That is a power which is not in the least likely to be exercised at present. The only reason it is in the Bill is the one I have stated, that we must not legislate differently for Canada without having powers with regard to other places, and the only case in which it would be in the least likely to be applicable would be if it turned out hereafter there were one or two pedigree cattle of a very high quality which could safely be introduced, under proper supervision and with provisions as to quarantine, and the House may be asked to approve of their introduction. There is no intention of doing anything of the kind at present. I ask the Committee to leave the Clause in the Bill, accepting that assurance from us, despite the suspicions of my hon. and gallant friend.

Mr. DENNIS HERBERT: I am afraid the distrust of the Government by the hon. and gallant Member for Lanark (Captain Elliot) is likely to spread a little further, if this sort of thing goes on. I would press the Government to consider this question further. A large number of their supporters voted against the removal of the embargo in the last Parliament, but came back prepared to support the removal of the embargo with regard to Canada. No other Dominions had been mentioned. Now we are asked to agree to a Clause which practically extends the concession to every Dominion of the British Commonwealth. The
defence put up by the right hon. Gentleman the Attorney-General seems to give away the case entirely. In the first place, although a new Member of this House, the right hon. Gentleman has experience which makes it perfectly hopeless for him to take up the innocent position, that the Minister has really no power, because he has to make an Order which will be on the Table of the House. We who have been in the House only a very short time know that is very little guarantee and that it practically gives the Minister powers which should be vested in Parliament. The case against applying to the other Dominions what we are asked to apply to Canada has never been answered by the Government, for the very simply reason that they must know perfectly well—their report has already been referred to—that the case cannot be answered. All they have definitely to depend upon are the two arguments used by the right hon. Gentleman the Attorney-General, one being the particular reason for which, he says, this Clause was put in, and the other being that the Clause is of no importance whatever, because it has to be carried out by an Order to be laid on the Table of the House. We are told if we pass this provision with regard to Canada and not with regard to the other Dominions that immediately pressure will be brought to bear and complaints made of the other Dominions not being treated fairly. Where, then, is the argument of the Attorney-General that this power is not likely to be exercised? If this Clause is to be inserted in order to allow the other Dominions to bring pressure upon the Government, the answer is that the pressure by the other Dominions should be brought upon Parliament and not upon a Minister of the Crown. As for as I am concerned, I think this is a treatment of their followers by the Government which, perhaps, one might not have been surprised at from the last Government, but which we hoped we should not receive from this Government.
I feel very strongly indeed that, in a case where supporters of the Government have loyally given way to their own opinions as a result of the discussion that took place and the Resolution that was carried in this House and in view of the determination to bring forward this
Bill, which was put before the country at the time of the General Election, to ask us to vote for a Bill which includes practically the removal of the embargo, if the Minister of Agriculture be soft-hearted enough to act, with regard to every part of the British Dominions, is straining our loyalty too far. I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will press this matter to a division; if he does so I shall support him.

Captain ERNEST EVANS: I certainly did not expect that many of the apprehensions to which I gave voice when we were discussing this matter last Session would be confirmed in so short a time. I am quite sure that is the view taken by very many hon. Members who were of the same mind as I was last Session. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lanark (Captain Elliot) and I who had an opportunity of taking part in that discussion, based our objection to the removal of the embargo on the ground of health. The reply given to us immediately was, "Oh, but there is no disease in Canada, and therefore there is no danger of what you fear." When we ventured, in reply to that, to point out that as soon as we allowed cattle to come in from Canada a demand would be made that cattle should come from other places, we were told "Oh no, there are no other places where cattle can come from, and, in any case, even if there are such places, we are not disposed to allow cattle to come in from any other Dominion." Yet, to-night, the right hon. and learned Attorney-General uses precisely that argument. He says. "You are allowing cattle to come in from Canada, how can you possibly discriminate against another Dominion?' He says, "You are treating one Dominion quite differently from all the other Dominions." Yes, but the whole of this question last Session was discussed as one which affected one Dominion only. I would not mind venturing the suggestion that when this matter was first raised last Session there were only a comparatively small number of people in this House, and certainly a very small number of people outside who knew that the embargo applied, not merely to Canada, but to all countries outside Great Britain.
I should like to ask one or two questions. Has any request been directed to the Government by any Dominion other than Canada for the removal of the em-
bargo? I think no such request has come. The second question, which I was going to ask, has perhaps already been answered by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. It was whether there was any likelihood of these powers being used? He has said, "No. The Minister of Agriculture has no intention at all of using these powers." If the Minister has no intention of using these powers, why is it that he is so very anxious to have them included in the Bill? The right hon. and learned Gentleman went on to say that, even if the Minister of Agriculture had the intention, Clause 4 says that the conditions must not be less stringent than those applicable to Canada. The very proviso to the Clause, however, removes one of the most stringent conditions straight off, by saying that the condition applying to vessels bringing Canadian cattle shall not apply to vessels carrying cattle from any of the other Dominions. Then, the right hon. and learned Attorney-General says, "You can rely upon it that the Minister of Agriculture is not likely to use these powers unless there are very grave reasons for so doing." I have no doubt the Minister of Agriculture is very anxious to benefit the industry of agriculture to the greatest possible extent. It is possible that this Government may remain in power for four or five years, but it is possible, and particularly when we find the Attorney-General complaining of the distrust of one of his most loyal supporters in the first few days of the new Parliament, that this Government will not last four or five years, and even if the Government does last five years, it is possible that the present Minister of Agriculture may, like a predecessor, be promoted to another sphere, and the new Minister may not take the same view of this question as the present Minister does, yet in this Bill we are giving power to the present Minister and to his successors for all eternity—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"]—I withdraw the expression "for all eternity" and substitute "for many years"—to do things which the present Minister say3 he has no intention of doing. The learned Attorney-General says, "Even if the Minister goes wrong, you have got the provision that Draft Orders shall be laid on the Table of the House." The hon. Member for Watford (Mr. D. Herbert) has pointed out that
that is really very illusive protection indeed, and unless the Minister can satisfy me that there is some substantial reason for including this Clause, and can remove some of the very substantial doubts which I feel as to its wisdom, I shall have to vote against the Clause.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I want to support the hon. and gallant Member for Lanarkshire (Captain Elliot), for two reasons. The first is that the House that decided this question of the Canadian cattle embargo decided it on a free Vote of the House, and they largely decided it on the merits of the case as submitted by the Royal Commission that went into the question. After all, you have to recognise that there are only a few men in the House of Commons who have really an intimate knowledge of agriculture; the large mass of the Members are neutral, and to a large extent they are dependent on advice from outside sources or from men who sat on a particular Committee. Therefore, that House voted, not for the removal of the embargo against India, not for the removal of the embargo on Australian cattle; they voted only for the removal of the embargo on Canada. The Attornel-General says: "All that we are asking for is that the other Colonies should get the same treatment as Canada." That is all that the hon. and gallant Member for Lanarkshire is asking, namely, that before any legislation of this kind is introduced a Commission ought to be set up to go into the question the same way as in regard to Canada. We are not asking for any different treatment for the other Colonies than has already been given to Canada, and I hope this House will insist on the same treatment being meted out to the other Colonies as has been meted out to Canada. I confess frankly that I know nothing about the merits of the case in regard to Australia or India, but I want to be quite sure, before I cast my vote, that I shall not hinder the development of agriculture or in any way endanger the bringing in of disease into this country, and I look for my advice from a neutral and well-informed authority in a similar way as we got it in the recent Commission that investigated the question of the Canadian embargo.

Mr. PRETYMAN: I do not know whether the Committee has looked at Clause 11 of the Bill, which goes much
further than we have really hitherto thought. It says:
His Majesty may, by Order-in-Council, declare that this Act shall apply to any territory which is under His Majesty's protection or in respect of which a mandate is being exercised by His Majesty.
11.0 P.M
That carries the thing very wide indeed, and I really think that the Government will be very well advised to reconsider this matter. I was going to ask the same question as was asked by the hon. Member for Cardigan (Captain E. Evans). Has there really been any demand on the part of any Dominions of the British Empire for the insertion of this Clause? I can hardly think that any Dominion would have asked for it, because it is so obvious that the conditions are entirely different from those in Canada. I agree with the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan). The thing really does not bear argument. It has not been supported by any argument, and I think it may be, perhaps, what one might charitably describe as a little bit of Imperial window-dressing. There is a form of window dressing which has recently been subjected to a very severe punishment. That is a very different form from this, but I do think that window-dressing is undesirable in any form, and I do not think any practical purpose will come out of this. I do hope, therefore, that the Government will reconsider it.

Sir R. SANDERS: I am quite ready to listen to the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman. Of course, this Clause is not vital to the main object of the Bill. I know that some representations have been made on behalf of Colonies that if this Bill were applied to Canada they might have the chance of coming in too. I do not know the details of these suggestions, and if the Committee will allow me to leave this Clause over to the Report, I will undertake to communicate with the Colonial Office, find out exactly what has passed between us and the Colonies, and, if I find that there is no really vital reason why the Clause should be, kept in, I will be quite ready to have it removed on Report.

Major WHELER: Will not the right hon. Gentleman withdraw the Clause, go into the question between now and Report, and then, if necessary, reinstate
the Clause on Report? It would be quite an easy thing to do. It would be far more satisfactory to the House. The public at large have dealt with this question as one between ourselves and Canada. I am quite certain that they have not realised the large application that would arise under this Clause if adopted. Therefore, I would appeal very strongly to the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw this Clause. He will have time between now and Report, even if it is to-morrow, to look up the Papers in his Ministry, and, if he finds that there is a strong demand from other parts of the Dominions of the Empire, I am quite sure the House will not stand in the way of that demand. On the other hand, if there is not that demand, we can treat the Bill, as we understood it, from the agricultural point of view, that this was a question between ourselves and Canada as regards the agreement come to after discussion in the House, when a majority carried the decision that we should admit store cattle, and, therefore, deal with it as a matter concerning ourselves and Canada only. I would appeal very strongly to the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw this Clause, and, if necessary, I am sure the House would give him the chance of re-introducing it on Report.

Sir R. SANDERS: I am quite ready to do that.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: It seems to me that this is giving way to clamour which is instigated by the Protectionist theorists. I cannot understand why, if the Board of Agriculture discovers that there is no risk in importing cattle from Australia or South Africa, they should be—[HON. MEMBEKS: "They have discovered it!"] It seems, to me that this Clause leaves the door open to exactly that restriction on the importation of cattle, store cattle, and breeding cattle that we urgently require here from the point of view, not particularly of the producer, but of the consumer. Those of us who stand for Free Trade, doctrines in this House must register our protest against the conception of this Bill as being one which is solely directed to the interests of the producers—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]—whether they be in Canada or in this country. We want cheap cattle, cheap beef—the best we can get—and we should allow the greatest
possible opportunity for opening our ports to imports from whatever country may be in a position to supply our wants.

Mr. SHINWELL: I am surprised that the Minister of Agriculture should give way in this timid fashion to some of his disgruntled followers. It is positively amazing, I confess, and I cannot understand the reason of it. No case has been put up against the Government on this particular issue. It is perfectly true that one speech was delivered from these benches [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"]—and a very excellent speech it was.

Major WARING: On a point of Order. The Minister having consented to withdraw the Clause, is it in order to go on with this discussion?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The question has not yet been put.

Mr. SHINWELL: I desire to express my own opinion as to the case presented. If we are going to object to the wide powers that can be exercised by the Minister arising from the provisions of the Bill, then equally we must take exception to many of the powers which are here. I submit, therefore, there is no case on that ground. With respect to the pathological aspect of the question, look at Clause 10 of the Bill. It gives the Minister power to provide
for the application to imported animals of any test for disease or of any treatment for disease.

Captain ELLIOT: For many of the diseases there are no tests!

Mr. SHINWELL: I admit in this matter the pathological knowledge of my hon. and gallant Friend, but there you are! I presume that if the Minister had any doubt or difficulty he would make a friend of my hon. and gallant Friend who, I understand, has very great and special knowledge of this particular question. I want to submit one additional point. The hon. Member for Lanark^ shire submitted—and if the approval of the three counted for anything, it was the strongest argument that could be presented—that this Bill applies, and was understood to apply originally, only to the importation of cattle from Canada. After all, you cannot apply the question to Canada without having regard to the importation of cattle from other parts of
the world. You cannot disregard the claims of India, Australia or Africa. [An HON. MEMBER: "Or Mesopotamia."] I should never dream of suggesting Mesopotamia to hon. Gentlemen on these benches, having regard to the antecedents pf members of the Liberal party. I think these proposals should apply equally to Ireland and Australia. If the Bill was intended to apply to Canada only why was Ireland brought in? I ask the Minister of Agriculture to stand to his guns and not to be frightened or moved by a few disgruntled followers of the Government who do not know where they are. The right hon. Member for Central Glasgow (Mr. Bonar Law) commenced his campaign by informing everybody that he did not know where he was and, naturally, we are not surprised that his followers should adopt the same attitude. The right hon. Gentleman should not have allowed that soft-heartedness of his to overcome his judgment. He is fortified by the Attorney-General whose legal mind will enable him to overcome the subtleties of the hon. Member for Lanark (Captain Elliot).

Mr. ALEXANDER: Captain Fitzroy. [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide, divide!"] I have been listening to this Debate all the afternoon, whilst many hon. Members opposite who are shouting "Divide" have been in the smoke room.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think the Committee is ready to proceed to a Division, and I do not suppose that the hon. Member has much to say.

Mr. ALEXANDER: Some of us here have sat right through this Debate when hon. Members opposite have not been sticking to their job. There is only one point I wish to bring forward. During the Debates in July last on the Motion for the removal of the embargo, it is very strange that the hon. and gallant Member for Lanark (Captain Elliot) and the hon. and gallant Member for Cardigan (Captain E. Evans) were the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment for the rejection of the Motion for the removal of the embargo, and they stated again and again that if the embargo on Canadian cattle were removed you would get similar requests from other parts of the Empire. That was put up again and again as an argument against the removal of the embargo on Canadian cattle, and yet when the
Government take their supporters at their word they are found fault with. They have fulfilled exactly in this Clause all that was said to be inevitable during the Debate in July. I hope the Minister of Agriculture will not be so unwise as to give way to the clamour of his supporters and that the Committee will oppose the withdrawal of the Clause.

Dr. CHAPPLE: There is something to be said in favour of this Clause. It will not apply to store cattle. They can only be taken overseas for a comparatively short distance. They cannot be brought from South Africa, or Australia or New Zealand. It would not pay to do it for the purpose of fattening them. But the provisions of this Clause would be useful if it is necessary in order to improve the breed of the stock in this country to import animals from distant Dominions, and we ought to have some such provision. The Minister of Agriculture says he knows of no demand from any other Dominions for facilities for importing animals into this country. I submit that there is a great demand. I have recently been on a tour through the

Dominions, and I know that in New Zealand there is a big agitation for facilities for exporting sheep and cattle from that Colony to this country. Frisian cattle in New Zealand are showing better results than in any other part of the world, and there is, therefore, a demand to export them to this country in order to improve our breeds. The Attorney-General told us that he was convinced that there is no risk of the dangers which hon. Members apparently apprehend from this Clause being passed, as the Rules or Regulations issued by the Minister would be no less stringent for the protection of animals in this country from disease than those applying to Canada, and an Order approved by the House of Commons and by the other House would be necessary before such a provision could come into force. I think the demand from the Dominions will be found to be very great. It ought to be conceded, and the danger will be negligible.

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 98; Noes, 243.

Division No. 30.]
AYES.
[11.20 p.m.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hirst, G. H.
Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hogge, James Myles
Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Robinson, W. C. (York, Elland)


Barnes, A.
Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)
Royce, William Stapleton


Batey, Joseph
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Saklatvala, S.


Broad, F. A.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Scrymgeour, E.


Brotherton, J.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Sexton, James


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East)
Shinwell, Emanuel


Buckle, J.
Kirkwood, D.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)
Lansbury, George
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Cairns, John
Lawson, John James
Sitch, Charles H.


Chappie, W. A.
Lee, F.
Smith, T. (Pontefract)


Darbishire, C. W.
Linfield, F. C.
Snell, Harry


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Lunn, William
Spencer, George A. (Broxtewe)


Duncan, C.
Mathew, C. J.
Spencer, H. H. (Bradford, S.)


Dunnico, H.
Maxton, James
Stephen, Campbell


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Middleton, G.
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Entwistle, Major C. F.
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Falconer, J.
Morrison, H. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Muir, John W.
Warne, G. H.


Gray, Frank (Oxford)
Murnin, H.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Greenall, T.
Murray, R. (Renfrew,, Western)
Weir, L. M.


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Nichol, Robert
Welsh, J. C.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
O'Connor, Thomas p.
Westwood, J.


Groves, T.
O'Grady, Captain James
Whiteley, W.


Grundy, T, W.
Oliver, George Harold
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Hall. F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Paling, W.
Williams, T. (York. Don Valley)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Harbord, Arthur
Potts, John S.
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Harney, E. A.
Pringle, W. M. R.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hastings, Patrick
Richards, R.



Hayday, Arthur
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Riley, Ben
Mr. Amnion and Mr. T. Griffiths.


Herriotts, J.
Ritson, J.



NOES.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton, East)
Apsley, Lord
Balfour, George (Hampstead)


Alexander, Col. M. (Southwark)
Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence
Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.


Banks, Mitchell
Goff, Sir R. Park
Parker, Owen (Kettering)


Barlow, Rt. Hon. Sir Montague
Gray, Harold (Cambridge)
Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry


Barnett, Major Richard w.
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Pattinson, S. (Horncastle)


Becker, Harry
Gretton, Colonel John
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C H. (Devizes)
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
Penny, Frederick George


Bennett, Sir T. J. (Sevenoaks)
Guthrie, Thomas Maule
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Berry, Sir George
Gwynne, Rupert S.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Betterton, Henry B.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Perring, William George


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Philipson, H. H.


Bird, Sir W. B. M. (Chichester)
Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W. (LW'p'I,W.D'by)
Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.


Blundell, F. N.
Hamilton, Sir George C. (Altrincham)
Price, E. G.


Bonwick, A.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Privett, F J.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Hancock, John George
Raeburn, Sir William H.


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Raine, W.


Brass, Captain W.
Harrison, F. C.
Rankin, Captain James Stuart


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Harvey, Major S. E.
Rawson, Lieut.-Com, A. C.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Hawke, John Anthony
Rentoul, G. S.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South)
Reynolds, W. G. W.


Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham)
Henderson, Sir T. (Roxburgh)
Rhodes, Lieut.-Col. J. P.


Brown, J. W. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Bruford, R.
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Robertson, J. D. (Islington, W.)


Bruton, Sir James
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Rothschild, Lionel de


Buckley, Lieut-Colonel A.
Hewett, Sir J. P.
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Burney, Com. (Middx., Uxbridge)
Hinds, John
Ruggles-Brise, Major E.


Burnle, Major J. (Bootle)
Hoars, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Butt, Sir Alfred
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Russell, William (Bolton)


Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy
Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney


Cassels, J. D.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Rutherford. Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)


Cautley, Henry strother
Hood, Sir Joseph
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Cecil, Rt. Hon, Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Hopkins, John W. W.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)
Houfton, John Plowright
Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)
Sanderson, Sir Frank B.


Churchman, Sir Arthur
Hudson, Capt. A.
Sandon, Lord


Clay, Lieut-Colonel H. H. Spender
Hume, G. H.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustava D.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hurd, Percy A.
Shakespeare, G. H.


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Hurst, Lt.-Col. Gerald Berkeley
Shepperson, E. W.


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Simpson, J. Hope


Collison, Levi
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Sinclair, Sir A.


Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Skelton, A. N.


Cope, Major William
Jarrett, G. W. S.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)
Jephcott, A. R.
Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furness)


Cotts, Sir William Dingwall Mitchell
Jodrell, sir Neville Paul
Sparkes, H. W.


Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.
Johnson, sir L. (Walthamstow, E.)
Steel, Major S. Strang


Craig, Capt. C. C. (Antrim, South)
Joynson-Hicks, Sir William
Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.


Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Henry Page
King, Capt, Henry Douglas
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Crook, C. W. (East Ham, North)
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Crooke, J. S. (Deritend)
Lamb, J. Q.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid H.


Curzon, Captain viscount
Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R.
Sutherland, Rt. Hon. Sir William


Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)
Linfield, F. C.
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)


Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
Lorden, John William
Thomson, Luke (Sunderland)


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Lorimer, H. D.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Doyle, N. Grattan
Lort-Williams, J.]
Thornton, M.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Ednam, Viscount
M'Connell, Thomas E.
Tubbs, S. W.


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Turton, Edmund Russborough


Elvedon, Viscount
Macnaghten, Hon, Sir Maicolm
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Emlyn-Jones, J. E. (Dorset, N.)
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Wallace, Captain E.


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Maddocks, Henry
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Erskine-Bolst, Captain C.
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Waring, Major Walter


Evans. Capt. H. Arthur (Leicester, E.)
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington)


Evans, Ernest (Cardigan)
Margesson, H. D. R.
Wells, S. R.


Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.
Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dlne, E.)
Weston, Colonel John Wakefield


Falcon, Captain Michael
Mason, Lieut.-Col. C. K.
Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.


Fermor-Hesketh, Major T.
Mercer, Colonel H.
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)


Flanagan, W. H.
Mline, J. S. Wardlaw
White, Lt.-Col. G. D. (Southport)


Foot, Isaac
Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)
Whitla, Sir William


Ford, Patrick Johnston
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)


Forestler-Walker, L.
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Windsor, Viscount


Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Morrison, Hugh (Wilts, Salisbury)
Wintringham, Margaret


Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Murchison, C. K.
Wise, Frederick


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Natl, Major Joseph
Wolmer, Viscount


Furness, G. J,
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Galbraith, J. F. W.
Newson, Sir Percy Wilson
Worsfold, T. Cato


Ganzoni, Sir John
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Yerburgh, R. D. T.


Garland, C. S.
Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)
Young, Rt. Hon. E. H. (Norwich)


Gates, Percy
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)



Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)
Paget, T. G.
Colonel Gibbs and Major Barnston.


Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSES 5 (Supervision by Commissioners of Customs and Excise of Landing of Animals) and 6 (Compensation
not Payable in respect of Slaughter of Imported Animals) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 7.—(Fees on importation.)

There shall be charged in respect of the landing of imported animals in Great Britain such fees as may, in the opinion of the Treasury, be sufficient to meet the expenses of the examination of imported animals by veterinary inspectors, but not exceeding as respects any one animal the sum of sixpence, and any fees so charged shall, on demand by the Minister and before the animal or the carcase of the animal, as the case may be, is moved from the wharf or landing-place, be paid to him by the person so moving the animal or carcase.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Sir W. ALLEN: With reference to the proposed charge of 6d. per head, I should like to know if that is in addition to the 2s. per head which is already paid to the veterinary inspectors. If so, these gentlemen will retire shortly as millionaires. If Ireland sends over, say, a million head of cattle, that will mean £100,000. What is done with all this money? It is rather a serious item.

Major CLIFTON BROWN: With respect to the charge of 6d. per head, that will amount to £1,000 for 40,000 animals. If 200,000 animals are inspected, that will mean £5,000. If you allow three veterinary inspectors for each £1,000 of fees, that would allow salaries of £330 per year each, which is not extravagant for a full-time man. You will only get 15 inspectors for the fees of 6d. per head paid on 40,000 cattle. That may be enough, but I am anxious to draw attention to the opinion of the Ministry's own veterinary advisers. In the evidence given before the Royal Commission, Question 3975, Sir Stewart Stockman said he would require half as many inspectors again as he already had to supervise the importation of Canadian cattle. He said he had 83, so that if he wants half as many again, he will want more than another 40. Therefore, the money provided by these sixpences will only provide one-third of what is required to pay the salaries of properly efficient veterinary surgeons. It is perfectly useless unless the inspection is efficient. As the money provided out of the sixpences will not be enough to provide efficient services according to the answers of the right hon. Gentleman's own veterinary adviser, I think the sum should be increased.

Sir R. SANDERS: The 2s. charge is not made by the Ministry of Agriculture. I do not know who puts on the charge. It must be someone who is not employed by the Ministry of Agriculture. With regard to the fee of 6d., we consider that it will cover the whole of the expenses; in fact, we estimate we shall be able to meet the expense for a smaller sum. We have worked out the sum, and we decided that it should not be more than 6d.

Mr. McCONNELL: Notwithstanding that the right hon. Gentleman says he does not know about it, the 2s. per head is charged and is paid to the veterinary officers in each district in respect of every beast detained for six days. The veterinary officer is paid 1s. per visit and he pays two visits to each beast during the six days' detention. That is going on at present, and if these cattle come from Ireland and Canada the veterinary staffs in England and Scotland will receive about £100,000 for the cattle detained, and it will be up to them to see that the cattle are detained, because the more the cattle are detained the more money they will receive.

CLAUSE 8.—(Draft of Orders to be laid before Parliament.)

Before any Order is made under the preceding provisions of this Act a draft of the Order shall, unless it is either an Order suspending the operation of any of the provisions of this Act or prohibiting the landing of animals, or an Order consequential on the making of any such Order of suspension or prohibition, be laid before each House of Parliament for a period of not less than twenty-one days on which that House is sitting, and if either House before the expiration of that period presents an Address to His Majesty against the draft or any part thereof, no further proceedings shall be taken thereon, but without prejudice to the making of any new draft Order.

Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to move, to leave out the words "any of the provisions," and to insert instead thereof the words "Section one."
I move this Amendment in a different form from the Amendment on the Paper. The Amendment on the Paper applied to Orders suspending any of the provisions of the Bill, but the Amendment now proposed excepts Orders under the first Clause of the Bill. I understand that there is power to suspend Clause 1
in certain circumstances. I understand that the Government are prepared to accept the Amendment in the form in which I now propose it.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: The right hon. Gentleman had put down the same Amendment as myself, and now moves it in a different form. The object of my Amendment was to secure that any Order made by the Minister under this Bill should be laid before Parliament. I cannot see that the Amendment as moved will secure that result.

Sir F. BANBURY: I did not want to take up time or I should have explained that the result of the alteration is simply this, that if the Minister should know that there was a certain outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in Canada, then, without waiting for Parliament to be called together, he could suspend the operation of the Act as far as that one thing is concerned.

Mr. ALEXANDER: I accept the Amendment if it is understood that that is what it means.

Sir D. HOGG: On behalf of the Government we accept the Amendment suggested by my right hon. Friend. The object of the exception is this: that unless we read these words in you could not suspend the importation of cattle from Canada if Parliament was not sitting, and you could not do it without 21 days' notice if it was sitting. If a sudden outbreak took place, no Member of the Committee would like that result to ensue. But, in fact, there is no power in the Bill to suspend the operation of anything except Clause 1. The Amendment makes clearer what is intended to be the effect of the Clause.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. PRETYMAN: I beg to move, to leave out the words "is sitting" and to insert instead thereof the words "has sat."
I am advised that the words "is sitting," if retained, would mean the losing of Saturday and Sunday, and in the case of a Recess, the losing of that also, so that the control of the House over a provision of this kind would be very materially reduced.

Sir R. SANDERS: I accept the Amendment. There seemed to be some doubt as to what was the best form of words to
use. After consulting the authorities I understand that the Amendment expresses better what is the intention of the Bill, namely, that each House shall have every possible opportunity of discussing the matter.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 9 (Regulation of movement of imported cattle) and 10 (Extension of power to make Orders under Section 30 of principal Act) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 11.—(Power to extend Act to territories under His Majesty's protection.)

His Majesty may, by Order in Council, declare that this Act shall apply to any territory which is under His Majesty's protection or in respect of which a mandate is being exercised by His Majesty, as if that territory were a British Dominion, and on the making of any such Order this Act shall, subject to the provisions of the Order, have effect accordingly.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.—[Sir R. Sanders.]

CLAUSE 12.—(Short Title, Interpretation and Commencement.)

(1) This Act may be cited as the Importation of Animals Act, 1922, and the Diseases of Animals Acts, 1894 to 1914, and this Act may be cited together as the Diseases of Animals Acts, 1894 to 1922.

(2) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires:

The expression "the Minister" means the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, and the expression "the Ministry" shall be construed accordingly:
The expression "veterinary inspector" means a person appointed by the Minister to be a veterinary inspector for the purposes of the principal Act:
The expression "British Dominion" means any part of His Majesty's Dominions outside Great Britain and Ireland.

(3) This Act shall be deemed to form part of and shall be construed as one with the principal Act.

(4) This Act shall come into operation on such date, not later than the first day of April, nineteen hundred and twenty-three, as His Majesty may by Order in Council appoint.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. PRETYMAN: Some verbal alteration of the expression "British Dominion" will be required in this Clause.

The CHAIRMAN: That can be done on Report.

SCHEDULE.

REGULATION OF MOVEMENT OF IMPORTED CATTLE.

Licence for movement from landing place.

1.—(1) No imported cattle shall be moved from the landing place at which they are landed except under a licence granted by a veterinary inspector and in accordance with such conditions, if any, as may be imposed by the licence and with the Regulations contained in this Schedule.

(2) A licence granted under this provision shall be a licence authorising the cattle to be moved either to—

(a) a market specially authorised in writing by the local authority of the district for the purposes of this provision (in this Schedule referred to as "an authorised market"); or
(b) premises (including a slaughterhouse) other than an authorised market.

(3) A local authority may, if they think fit, instead of granting an authority for the purposes of this provision in respect of the whole of a market, grant such an authority in respect of some part of a market, and where a part of a market is so authorised the provisions of this Schedule shall, unless the context otherwise requires, have effect as though references to a part of a market were substituted for references to a market.

(4) A copy of every authority granted by a local authority for the use of a market for the purposes of this provision shall be sent forthwith by the local authority to the Ministry.

Conditions to be complied with in the case of cattle in authorised markets.

2.—(1) Imported cattle which have been removed to an authorised market shall at all times while therein be kept separate from all animals other than imported cattle, and shall not, if part only of a market is authorised for the purposes of this Schedule, be permitted, while any such other animals are in the market, to enter any part of the market other than the authorised part.

(2) No animals other than imported cattle shall be permitted to enter an authorised market.

(3) Imported cattle exposed for sale at an authorised market shall not be moved there-from otherwise than under a licence granted by a local inspector and in accordance with such conditions, if any, as may be imposed by the licence or otherwise than to premises hot being an authorised market to be there detained in accordance with the provisions of this Schedule.

Detention of imported cattle on arrival at premises other than market.

3. When imported cattle have under a licence in that behalf been moved to premises other than an authorised market, whether from the landing place or from an authorised market, they shall on arriving at those premises be detained therein, unless previously slaughtered therein, for a period of six days from the date of arrival.

During the said period the cattle shall not be moved from the said premises otherwise than under a further licence to be granted by a local inspector, or otherwise than to a slaughter-house, to be therein detained until they are slaughtered, or to a vessel for export.

Temporary detention in special enclosures of cattle awaiting sale at market.

4.—(1) Where a licence has been granted under this Schedule authorising the movement of imported cattle to an authorised market, the cattle may by virtue of that licence, subject as hereinafter provided, be temporarily detained in special lairs or other enclosures adjoining or near to the market while awaiting exposure for sale in the market:
Provided that—

(a) the lairs or enclosures must be lairs or enclosures the use of which has been authorised by the local authority for the purpose of this provision, and the use of the lairs or enclosures for the purpose aforesaid shall be subject to such directions as may be given by or on behalf of the local authority;
(b) the lairs or enclosures must not be used for any animals other than imported cattle in course of being moved to an authorised market under this Schedule;
(c) the cattle shall not remain in the lairs or enclosures for a period exceeding seventy-two hours.

(2) If the Minister after making inquiries is satisfied that it is for any reason inexpedient or undesirable that any lairs or other enclosures, the use of which has been authorised for the purpose aforesaid, should be used for that purpose, the Minister may direct that those lairs or enclosures shall cease to be authorised lairs or enclosures for the purpose of this provision.

Provisions to licences and movement.

5.—(1) A licence granted under this Schedule for the movement of imported cattle shall remain in force for a period of five days, inclusive of the day on which it is granted, and no longer.

(2) A copy of every licence granted under this Schedule shall be sent forthwith by the veterinary inspector or local inspector by whom it is granted to the local authority of the district in which the authorised market or other authorised place of destination is situate, and also, where the place of destination is not an authorised market, to the occupier of that place.

(3) Every licence granted under this Schedule shall accompany the cattle to which it relates throughout the time during which they are being moved thereunder, and shall on demand be produced by the person for the time being in charge of the cattle to any veterinary inspector or local inspector or police constable.

(4) A licence authorising the movement of imported tattle to an authorised market shall be delivered up at the entrance to the market by the person for the time being in charge of the cattle to the person appointed by the local authority for the purpose of receiving such licences, and every licence authorising imported cattle to be moved elsewhere than to an authorised market shall forthwith after the arrival of the cattle at the authorised place of destination be delivered up at, or sent by post to, the nearest police station in the district by the person then in charge of the cattle.

(5) Imported cattle to be moved under a licence granted under this Schedule shall, so far as is practicable, be moved by rail, and shall in all cases be moved without unnecessary delay and direct to the authorised place of destination.

(6) Where imported cattle are being moved by rail they shall not, until they reach the railway station from which they are to be moved to the premises specified in the licence, be removed from their trucks for any purpose other than the purpose of being fed or watered, and then only at some railway station, and if removed for that purpose shall not be taken outside the station premises. Provided that nothing in the foregoing provision shall prevent the removal from its truck of any animal on account of any injury sustained by it or for any other necessary purpose.

Savings.

6. Nothing in this Schedule Shall

(a) apply to imported cattle intended for exhibition or other exceptional purposes, the landing of which is allowed for the time being by the Minister subject to the provisions of Part II of the Third Schedule to the principal Act; or
(b) be deemed to authorise the movement of any cattle in contravention of any order of the Minister, or any regulation of a local authority prohibiting or regulating the movement of cattle.

Interpretation.

7. In this Schedule, unless the context otherwise requires—

The expression "market" includes a fair-ground or saleyard:
The expression "local inspector" means a person appointed by the local authority of the district to be an inspector for the purposes of the principal Act:
The expression "slaughterhouse" means any premises where animals are habitually slaughtered.

Mr. CAUTLEY: I beg to move in paragraph (1, 2, a), after the word "market" ["a market specially authorised"], to insert the words
within five miles from the landing-place at which they are landed.
The object of the Amendment may be explained briefly. The scheme of the Regulations is that the cattle when landed from the ship may proceed to any authorised market—a market authorised in writing by the local authority—and being sold there, may be sent to the purchaser's place of business or to his farm and there detained for six days. If not sold they must then be sent to some place of detention and kept there six days. The Amendment seeks to provide that the authorised market to which they are first sent shall be a market within five miles from the place of landing. I am not wedded to five miles; I do not care whether it is five miles or ten miles. My object is to secure that all cattle coming by one particular ship, if they are going to be sold before the six days' detention has taken place, shall be sold at one market. Otherwise, supposing 300 or 400 head of cattle are sent in lots of 20 or 30 to different markets all over the country, those which are not sold will have to be detained, leading to an immense amount of trouble and administrative work, and it seems to me this will make the value of the detention nugatory. The object of the detention is that cattle may not be landed here, and brought about the country carrying incipient disease with them. The idea is that in the six days' detention, the disease, if any exist, will show itself and can be easily traced should it develop afterwards. I do not see what objection exists to the proposed Amendment. If they are sold at the one authorised market near the port of landing to private persons, all is well and good. The cattle then proceed to the particular farm, and are kept there six days, and longer; if disease should develop they can easily be traced at once. If, on the other hand, they are not sold there, they go to the place of detention near by. I have a further Amendment later to ensure that the place of detention shall be near to the port. There, again, if disease is developed, it is at once scotched, because the officers of the Board have these cattle in view.
The only objection I can possibly see to my scheme is that it may be said that purchasers from the country districts might like to buy these Canadian cattle direct from the ship. They can, of course, go to the market near the port, but if it is found that there is any clog on business by the Regulation, it would happen, as in the case of Irish cattle, that they would be detained near the port of landing for six days. After that time they can be sent to any market in any quantity without any licence and without trouble of any sort or kind. After the six days have expired, wherever the cattle are, they become free cattle and can be moved about by train or by road, just in the same way as English cattle.
That is the object of my Amendment, and I commend it to the Committee as leading to great ease and simplicity in administration, and to ultimate safety. It may be said that this will entail, in working, detention near the port. Suppose it does? Cattle which have come across on a voyage lasting 14 days and which may have been knocked about by rough seas, will have these six days during which to recover. I am perfectly certain that in many cases the importers of these cattle will prefer to keep them for six days and then to get better prices, owing to the improvement in their appearance.

Sir D. HOGG: My hon. and learned Friend seems to be under the impression that the object of the six days' detention which is provided for under the terms of the licence, is to enable any latent disease which is in the imported animals to manifest itself, and the animals, of course, to be segregated and slaughtered. In fact, however, that is not the object of the provision at all. Its object is to carry out the interim recommendations of the Committee presided over by the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Prety-man), and to prevent cattle, which arrive in this country perfectly free from disease, being moved about from one market to another and, by that means, picking up infection in one market and carrying it on to a number of others. It has nothing to do with disease manifesting itself in cattle infected before they arrive. It is to prevent cattle moving from one market to another and carrying disease with them. The cattle arrive free from disease. They can be sent to any one market, and it does not matter
whether they go to one or to 20 different markets for this purpose. They are free from disease when they get to the market. They can none of them move from one market to another under the existing Clause without six days' detention, which prevents them carrying on infection. The Clause provides that they shall be detained for six days after they have been to the market. If they have gone straight to other premises they shall be detained for six days at those premises. If, after that time, no disease has manifested itself, then we may feel pretty confident that they have not got any disease and can be mixed up with other cattle. To put in the proviso which my hon. and learned Friend suggests, limiting the market to which they are to go to a radius of five miles of the port of arrival, would not only impose a serious handicap on Irish and Canadian cattle, but also one which, in the opinion of the Committee, and in the opinion of those advising the Minister, is wholly unnecessary, and would cause considerable inconvenience, decrease competition of these cattle, and considerably hamper trade.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. CAUTLEY: I beg to move, at the end of paragraph 1 (4), to insert a new paragraph—
(5) 'Local authority' in this Section means the local authority of the district in which is situate the landing-place at which the cattle are landed.
I rather think that this will not fit in with the Bill, as my previous Amendment was not accepted, but I would like to point out to the Attorney-General that there is no definition here as to what the local authority is.

Mr. PRINGLE: On a point of Order. Can this be construed with the rest of the Schedule?

Mr. CAUTLEY: I have just been saying it could not, but I am taking the opportunity of moving it, to point out that the learned Attorney-General has no definition in the Bill of what is the local authority which has to issue these licences.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. FALCONER: I beg to move, at the end of paragraph 2 (2), to insert the words
except with the permission of the local authority.
The Bill provides that imported cattle may be sent to a market authorised by the local authority, and may be sold there, and if my Amendment is accepted, then the Schedule will read:
No animals other than imported cattle shall be permitted to enter an authorised market except with the permission of the local authority.
If the Bill stand as printed, it will be an absolute prohibition against the use of that particular market at all other times. It is represented to me by those familiar with the business that it might well mean that the Canadian cattle trade will be a seasonal trade, and perhaps only for five or six months of the year will imported cattle be sold. It seems reasonable, therefore, that the local authority, who are to grant a licence, should also have the power, if they are satisfied, to allow the market to be used for cattle other than imported cattle. If they were satisfied, it would be perfectly safe to do so.

12 M.

Sir D. HOGG: Although I do not regard the matter as one of the first importance, I venture to think it would be better to leave the words as they are, because if we insert the words which the hon. Member suggests, the result will be that it will be left to the discretion of every local authority as to whether or not animals other than imported cattle shall come into the market at which imported cattle are being sold. That might be rather a dangerous power to leave absolutely untrammelled in the hands of the local authority, and I think more confidence would be felt if one were sure that these markets, in which imported cattle were being sold should not be visited by other cattle, and therefore there should be no risk of infection being transmitted from one to the other.

Mr. FALCONER: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman consider this between now and Report? It appears that it would cost much additional expenditure to auctioneers and others who lay out their yards, unless there was some provision, it might be by the Ministry of Agriculture or the local authority—I do not care which—by which they should not be deprived of the use of their yards, because they have been used at one time by Canadian cattle.

Major M. WOOD: I am very sorry the right hon. and learned Gentleman has
not seen fit to accept this Amendment, which I think very necessary, and certainly cannot do any harm. If the Bill be accepted as it now stands, it means that these premises are going to lie almost derelict for months every year. I think I am right in saying that this traffic is bound to be a seasonal one, and if the Bill passes as it stands, it will be impossible to use these markets for a considerable part—perhaps half—of the year. That is going to entail enormous expense on the dealers and salesmen who are interested in this traffic, and I do think that no harm can really come if the Government accept this. It seems to me that there is no reason why the Amendment should not be accepted now, but if the Government cannot accept it now, I hope they will go very seriously into it and give a decision on Report.

Sir D. HOGG: I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that I will give, or my right hon. Friend the Minister will give, the matter consideration between now and the Report stage. I do not think we can accept the Amendment, but we will consider the matter and consult with our advisers to see whether anything can be done to meet the point.

Mr. FALCONER: May I suggest that ample provision can be made against the risk of infection?

Sir D. HOGG: We will consider the matter.

Amendment negatived.

The following Amendment stood on the Paper in the name of Sir KEITH FRASER: In paragraph 3, after the word "six," to insert the word "clear."

Sir K. FRASER: As I fully realise that this Bill is most ineffective, I do not propose to move the Amendment.

The CHAIRMAN: I must point out to the hon. Baronet that if he does not intend to move, he ought not to speak.

Major WHELER: I beg to move, in paragraph 3, to leave out the words
under a further licence to be granted by a local inspector, or otherwise than.
This refers to the six days' detention, and I consider this an important provision. I do not question the work of the local inspectors, but this seems to me to be going wide of the Bill.

Sir R. SANDERS: The Amendment of my hon. and gallant Friend is intended to make the Clause stronger; it will have precisely the opposite effect, and make it weaker Under no circumstances can the cattle be moved from the same premises to another market. If moved at all two conditions must be observed; the first that there must be a further licence granted by the local inspector, and secondly, they must be moved to a slaughter house or a vessel for export, and to no other place.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. CAUTLEY: I beg to move, in paragraph 3, to leave out the words
or to a vessel for export.
I do not see the necessity for this provision at all.

Sir D. HOGG: The reason this power is included is that as the Bill is drawn at present, it applies Regulations to all animals that are brought into Great Britain. Among these are a certain number of animals that are imported from the Chanenl Islands. These animals, after 12 hours' detention, are moved across England to vessels for export, and this trade would be completely killed if this provision was not in.

Amendment negatived.

Schedule ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow (Tuesday), and to be printed [Bill 8].

GAS REGULATION ACT, 1920.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Bridlington Gas Company, which was presented on the 5th December, 1922, and published, be approved.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Burnham Gas Company, Limited, which was presented on the 28th November and published, be approved.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade
under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Chesham and District Gas Company, which was presented on the 5th December, 1922, and published, be approved.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Harrow and Stanmore Gas Company, which was presented on the 1st December and published, be approved.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Kingston-upon-Thames Gas Company, which was presented on the 28th November and published, be approved.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Lea Bridge District Gas Company, which was presented on the 4th December and published, be approved.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Long Eaton Gas Company, which was presented on the 28th November and published, be approved.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Sutton Gas Company, which was presented on the 28th November and published, be approved."—[Viscount Wolmer.]

PUBLIC PETITIONS.

Ordered, That a Select Committee be appointed, to whom shall be referred all Petitions presented to the House, with the exception of such as relate to Private Bills; and that such Committee do classify and prepare abstracts of the same, in such form and manner as shall appear to them best suited to convey to the House all requisite information respecting their contents, and do report the same from time to time to the House: and that the Reports of the Committee do set forth, in respect of each Petition,
the number of signatures which are accompanied by addresses, and which are written on sheets headed in every case by the prayer of the Petition, provided that on every separate sheet after the first the prayer may be reproduced in print or by other mechanical process; that such Committee have power to direct the printing in extenso of such Petitions, or of such parts of Petitions, as shall appear to require it; and that such Committee shall have power to report their opinion and observations thereupon to the House.

Committee nominated of Colonel Alexander, Mr. Blundell, Sir William Bull, Sir Godfrey Collins, Major Cope, Mr. Alfred Thomas Davies, Mr. Duncan, Lieut.-Colonel England, Mr. J. Guest, Mr. George Hirst, Lieut.-Colonel James, Mr. Foot Mitchell, Lieut.-Colonel Pow-
nall, Mr. Charles Roberts, and Viscount Windsor.

Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.

Ordered, that Three be the quorum.—[Major Barnston.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Monday evening, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at a Quarter after Twelve o'Clock.